Carbon Offsets, Carbon Credits,
Emissions Trading, Cap-and-Trade
Call it what you will... it's a tax on everything.

The entire business of carbon trading and carbon credits is based on the erroneous assumptions that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that it causes global warming, that global warming is a bad thing, and that the process can be reversed through legislation.

A tax on carbon dioxide emissions is a tax on the combustion of any hydrocarbon — coal, natural gas, or petroleum derivatives (gasoline).  Thus it is a tax on internal combustion engines and industrial activity of any kind.  In other words, it is a tax on everything.  That's a brilliant idea, if your job is to generate tax revenue.  Unfortunately the stated benefit of the so-called "carbon tax" is a fraud.  Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not something to be avoided.  (You do it every five seconds, when you exhale.)  Plants all over the world, from the grass lands to the rain forests, benefit from increasing levels of CO2.

The Key to Understanding the Global Warming Fraud.  While it did not introduce any new scientific means to reduce CO2 emissions (worldwide CO2 emissions grew by 32% during the period), the [1998] Kyoto Protocol introduced a novel economic concept:  the trading of carbon credits and offsets.  At first, the concept of trading carbon credits was straightforward; it was known as "cap and trade."  Each country was allocated a level of carbon emissions each year by the signatories to the agreement based on an annual targeted reduction in carbon emissions to reach the goal.  If a country or emitter expected to exceed its cap, it could "trade" or buy unused carbon credits from other countries that expected to emit less than their cap.  However, if a country failed to meet its emissions target and did not purchase carbon credits, the protocol required it to make up the difference in the second commitment period, with an additional 30% penalty.  On December 15, 2011, Canada withdrew from the treaty to avoid paying $14 billion in fines for emissions greater than its cap.  Shortly thereafter, the treaty fell apart.  However, a star was born:  a new commodities market with huge growth potential. [...] The worldwide market for trading carbon was estimated to be $10 billion in 2004, it grew to $800 billion by 2018, and it was estimated to be $1 trillion by the end of 2021.

General Assembly sends carbon capture bill to governor's desk.  A legal framework for carbon capture and sequestration, part of a plan to reduce emissions and advance hydrogen development, has made it through the General Assembly.  It now awaits the governor's signature.  Senate Bill 831 has found support among some environmental groups like the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Nature Conservancy — but others like the Better Path Coalition, Clean Air Council, and the Center for Coalfield Justice have opposed it.

The Editor says...
[#1] Carbon dioxide is not carbon, so please stop saying, "carbon capture."  [#2] Carbon dioxide is plant food.  It is not a pollutant that needs to be extracted from the air.  [#3] It is not necessary for every state (or any state!) to have its own carbon dioxide sequestration scheme.  Each additional plant would remove CO2 from the same atmosphere as all the others.  And no matter how many of these plants are built, they can't possibly keep up with the CO2 emissions from China and India.

Carbon vacuum nicknamed 'Mammoth' goes online, promises to remove 1/1,000,000th of annual emissions with a hefty price tag.  Call me crazy, but it seems like if the goal is creating superior air quality, and doing it as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible, which should be the goal for any government or "private" (air quotes because this is crony capitalism) business, then the solution is trees... right?  I've said this before but I'll say it again — this is not to suggest that high carbon levels in the atmosphere makes for dirty air as it's a requirement for every living thing on the planet, and the lower the carbon levels means the less plant growth we have, from crops to grasslands, and from biodiverse jungles to kelp forests.  Carbon is a "building block of life" after all, with the American Chemical Society declaring it "impossible to live without." Which is why, from the leftist cultists that spread death everywhere they go, it's easy to see why carbon is Public Enemy No. 1.

The Editor says...
Please stop saying "carbon" when you are speaking about carbon dioxide.  Using "carbon" as a nickname for CO2 probably started in the lazy news media, where the writers don't know the difference.

Green terrorists are stealing property in America's heartland to build massive CO2 pipeline.  Summit Carbon Solutions is back at it in Iowa trying to steal private farmland for use in its massive "carbon capture" scam.  The Iowa Utility Board (IUB) reportedly approved a proposal by Summit to build a carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline that stretches across five Midwestern states:  Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.  The pipeline is slated to cover 2,500 miles — the portion in Iowa is supposed to be 680 miles long — and connect with 57 ethanol plants, a spokeswoman from the company revealed.  The IUB decision will allow Summit to use eminent domain to steal 859 land parcels from private landowners, the vast majority of whom are opposed to the "green" project, which aims to bury CO2 underground so it cannot "pollute" the environment.

EU's Ursula von der Leyen says it's time we 'put a price on carbon'.  Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission (the "executive arm" of the European Union), says "if we want to keep global warming below the tipping point" then it's about time we put a price on carbon emissions. [...] Ursula suggests that implementing a carbon tax would force "heavy polluters" to pay a price, but who determines what a "heavy polluter" is?  Big government bureaucrats?  Since when has the government, or a bureaucrat for that matter, ever been a reliable litmus test of objectivity and fairness?  These are the same types of people who insist I can afford to fork over 25% of the money I earn just in federal income tax, and tell me I still have enough to afford the very high price of quality food, and massive energy bills because they want to eliminate affordable energy.  They're either totally unaware, or just plain sadistic and murderous — I lean toward the latter.

The Hidden Agenda Behind Lockdowns.  [Scroll down]  But some of the more insidious threats to American freedom are moving forward without needing a state of emergency.  The official response to the "climate crisis" offers countless examples.  If ongoing pandemics condemn Americans to recurrent lockdowns (a word once only used in the context of maximum security prisons, but to which we are now completely desensitized), it is to save the climate that might inform how our cells are designed.  They're not pretty.  Across America, single family homes with yards are being outlawed.  New construction is prohibited and existing suburbs are being rezoned.  This is to reduce "greenhouse gas," despite weak arguments that low density housing causes more "greenhouse gas," even if you think "greenhouse gas" is a real problem.  More generally, a whole new genre of creative accounting has been invented, called "carbon accounting," whereby corporations, along with state and local governments, are now required to calculate how they will reduce their "carbon footprint."  Failure to do so results in the loss of subsidies and grants, as well as access to investment capital.  Carbon accounting encompasses every imaginable aspect of life.

New study:  Corporate investments in 'carbon offset' schemes were 'probably junk' that did nothing to negate pollution.  We've all heard of liberal logic or leftist logic — but what about Bill Gates logic?  An individual can pollute the environment at an absurdly exaggerated rate compared to the average person because he or she is a pseudo-elite, and entitled to do so because they have the money to "invest" in mitigation schemes[,] commonly known as "carbon offset" technologies.  I mean, that's how Bill Gates excused his luxury lifestyle of private jets, yachts, and mega mansions when he admitted to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes that he "probably" has "one of the highest greenhouse gas footprints of anyone on the planet" and recognized the impact of his "personal flying alone" is "gigantic" so what he does is pay a "very high price" to a company that pulls carbon from the air and buries it underground to negate all the damage he's doing to the environment.  (However, when your existence in the world is deleterious to almost everyone else who lives here, you have to pretend you're contributing in some way, so it's not totally crazy.)

The Editor says...
Flying around in a private jet does not materially damage the environment, whether he's travelling alone or otherwise.  If Bill Gates wants to waste his own money by sequestering carbon dioxide, that doesn't help or hurt anyone else.

Economists' Advocacy for a Carbon [Dioxide] Tax Is Misguided.  Many, if not most, mainstream economists, both conservative and liberal, support a carbon tax.  As economist Alan Blinder recently remarked, "It's only a very slight exaggeration to say that all economists favor a carbon tax to mitigate climate change."  But I argue below their position seems to overlook real-world politics, bureaucratic incentives, and the "pretense of knowledge."  Advocates of a carbon tax seem to fall victim to what Ronald Coase labeled "blackboard economics".  The benefits from such a tax may, therefore, be far less than promised by blackboard economics, and than advocates are claiming.  In fact, the benefits can be negative, given what I regard as "guesstimates" (highly uncertain metrics) that policymakers rely on to represent the damage from carbon.  Aligned with Coase's blackboard economics, even if one can theoretically show that a carbon tax is the best way to combat climate change (which many economists would concur), it may fail in practice.  A major reason is the highly speculative nature of the external costs from carbon emissions.  Attempts to measure the social cost of carbon (SCC), for example, depend on predictions of economic and climatic conditions decades out in the future.  Analysts refer to the damage from carbon emissions as the SCC, which is the theoretically correct metric for setting a carbon tax.

Change Proposed to Compensation Method for Carbon Capture Leases.  Greater compensation for many property owners whose land is taken through eminent domain for carbon capture and sequestration projects is in a proposal at the Louisiana House of Representatives.  House Bill 783 would require landowners be compensated per acre to "no less than the maximum amount paid to any other landowner in that project."  [Advertisement]  The bill is applicable for carbon sequestration projects where the gas is put into pores underground, which is the empty space between grains in a sand layer.  Rep. Danny McCormick, R-Oil City, sponsor of the legislation, told the committee some of these CO2 storage plumes can be up to 20,000 acres.

Reject, Don't Reform, Carbon Capture.  Rep. Danny McCormick is certainly one of the better officials in Baton Rouge, someone who is not only willing to talk about State sovereignty but also do something to advance it, which makes us unhappy to have to criticize him.  But in this case it is necessary.  Rep. McCormick is sponsoring HB783, a bill that would ensure all property owners receive equal compensation if their property is taken from them for the sake of a carbon capture project.  That sounds nice — equal pay for the little guy — except for one problem:  He should be rejecting the entire premise the carbon capture 'industry' is built upon instead of trying to normalize it.

Another Climate Folly:  Carbon Capture and Storage.  [Scroll down]  " [...] The captured CO2 is compressed or liquefied and then transported, usually by pipeline.  The CO2 is then safely stored permanently and securely thousands of feet underground — this process is often called 'sequestration.'" [...] The CO2 is then transported by truck or through pipelines to the storage site(s).  Pipelines require pumps.  Trucks typically require diesel fuel.  Is this process free?  Nope.  Requires energy.  Then the liquified CO2 is pushed down deep in the earth under layers of rock, which requires drilling and more pumping.  Is this process free?  Nope.  Requires energy.  So now that we've got liquified CO2 buried under a naturally porous earth at a pressure that can lift water the equivalent of the depth it is buried, how long will it stay there?  Who knows?  Even though there have been no long-term studies on this at the various geologic sites and conditions planned for these vast and expansive projects, various government-funded studies such as this one (laundered through MIT) are suggesting it's "safe and effective" because gas has been found buried in the earth for millions of years.  Spoiler alert:  we didn't put it there by drilling big holes.  Big difference.

Biden admin temporarily drops 'outrageous climate mandate' amid flurry of lawsuits.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) temporarily suspended its controversial rule requiring private companies to disclose carbon emissions data after it was met with a slew of lawsuits.  The rule, which was finalized in March, was immediately met with litigation by a cohort of 25 GOP attorneys general, along with energy companies Liberty Energy and Nomad Proppant Services, and business groups including the Chamber of Commerce, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers and Domestic Energy Producers Alliance.  Last month, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a brief administrative stay of the rule while the various lawsuits were consolidated.  The groups asked the 8th Circuit to force the SEC to block its rule.  On Friday, the SEC voluntarily agreed to temporarily suspend its rule while the litigation continues on the merits.

Justin Trudeau's allies turn against him over carbon tax.  Justin Trudeau's political allies have turned on him over his "net zero" tax policy, as his Liberal Party slumps in the polls.  The Canadian prime minister is facing a rebellion within his own party over the unpopular 23 percent carbon tax rises, which will see drivers charged more for fuel from Monday.  The federal carbon price is set to bump up from Can $65 (£38) to Can $80 (£47), meaning the extra charge on gasoline will increase from 14.3 cents to 17.6 cents per litre.  As things stand, Mr Trudeau's Liberal Party is heading for humiliation in Canada's federal elections, which are due to be held by October next year.  According to one poll, the Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, are on course for a crushing victory, gaining 92 seats, while Mr Trudeau's Liberals lose 96.

Our Invisible Chains, Our Stolen Vote.  The next "green" horror: exploding carbon-capture pipelines.  Right now South Dakota is under attack by a freshly born green corporation, Summit Carbon Solutions, funded by China's Belt and Road initiative, and you, through the Green New Deal provisions buried in the last debt ceiling deal, to pipe "carbon," from the oil fields to some obscure part of the Dakotas and bury it.  There can be no more stupid waste of money than this.  But even some of our bravest politicians, including Kristi Noem, Pierre Poilivere and Danielle Smith in Canada cower before the almighty (anti-)carbon lobby and rabbit on about sequestering it.  It is an industry into which thieves flood because it means you loot the public purse at the beginning through Green New Deal giveaways, and then for all perpetuity because of the tax advantage. [...] A policy researcher friend tried to track down the annual billions, trillions over the last thirty years, that the U.N. and its various satellites have given of your money to "climate change" mitigation outfits in the Global South.  The money vanishes, nothing happens, it's stolen.  She google-earthed one heavily PR'ed outfit, only to discover that it didn't exist, just a pile of sand.  These projects are payoffs to an army of activists placed at every weak point in the system.  If the projects exist, they don't work.  Both the Guardian and Harper's have done extensive work on the fraud of "climate mitigation."  Carbon sequestration is a scam meant to steal public money.

Federal Court Halts Biden Admin's Corporate Emissions Disclosure Rule.  An appellate court paused the Biden administration's corporate emissions disclosure rule on Friday.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted Liberty Energy's request for an administrative stay against the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) corporate climate risk and emissions disclosure rule, according to a court filing.  The regulation requires medium-sized and large public corporations to disclose climate change-related risks and data on the emissions created directly by their businesses in financial reports.  Liberty Energy, a company that specializes in fracking, asked the court to halt the policy's implementation while its case works through the judicial system, according to Bloomberg.  The judges who signed off on the stay did not specify why they decided to do so in the court order.

The Ideology and Reality of Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage.  One of the greatest technological advancements in the climate change space is, arguably, the fact that we now have the technology to outright remove CO2 from its point of emission, or even the atmosphere.  This technology — called carbon capture utilization and sequestration (carbon capture for short) — is a huge step forward in solving the challenge of pollution from fossil fuel and should be considered a huge coup for the climate movement.  Wrong.  Back in 2021, over 500 conservation organizations took out a full-page advertisement in The Washington Post opposing any carbon capture technology, leading to a bizarre irony where climate-focused organizations are opposing proven climate solutions.  The carbon capture debate has revealed that in many ways climate progress is not held back by economics, but by idealogues [sic] that have an alternative agenda that overlaps with — but is not consistent with — climate progress.  Is the objective to put fossil fuel companies completely out of business (a naïve and impractical goal) or to solve the problem of climate change from carbon emissions?

The Editor says...
[#1] Removal of CO2 from the atmosphere does not solve any pollution problem, because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  [#2] So-called "carbon capture" (which actually captures carbon dioxide, which is not carbon) is not a "proven climate solution," because only a relatively tiny amount of CO2 has been "captured" in this manner, at a rate far slower than the Chinese are pumping it out, and the climate is still changing at the same imperceptibly slow rate.  [#3] Climate change is so gradual and inevitable that it is not a problem, and even if it is, it cannot be stopped.  For that reason, there is no such thing as "climate progress."

10 states file legal challenge to SEC climate disclosure rule.  West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced a coalition of 10 states will file a legal challenge to new regulations requiring public companies to disclose their climate-related risks and direct greenhouse gas emissions.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted 3-2 Wednesday to approve the climate disclosure rule, which will go into effect in 2026.  Intense blowback from the business community delayed the passage of the final rule as the agency combed through thousands of comment letters following the initial proposal in 2022.

Carbon removal is a very expensive product that no one needs.  Nearly 800 companies around the world are exploring a wide variety of methods for drawing planet-warming greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere and storing it away or putting it to use.  A gigantic leap from the five startups that James Temple could have named in 2019.  However, the industry is in trouble because carbon dioxide removal is "a very expensive product that no one needs" and no one seems eager to pay the "true cost" for the "waste management of invisible garbage."

The Editor says...
Carbon dioxide is not carbon, nor is it garbage.  It's plant food.

Hawaii looking 'to introduce a climate change fee for visitors'.  Visitors to Hawaii may be hit with a new fee, following in the footsteps of other popular holiday locations around the world.  Tourists heading to Hawaii may be slapped with additional entry costs, as the popular holiday destination looks to introduce a climate change fee for visitors.  The new tax, according to the state's Governor, Josh Green, would be introduced as a way to protect beaches and prevent future wildfires.  Mr Green estimates the flat-fee of around $25, which would be charged at hotel check-in or vacation rentals such as holiday homes, and amount to more than $68m annually if passed.

CNN Op-Ed Has a Big Idea — Carbon Passports for the Peasants.  The propaganda to restrict the peasant's travel is heating up.  The author of a CNN article, It's time to limit how often we can travel abroad — 'carbon passports' may be the answer, claimed the article was strictly his opinion, not CNN's.  He wrote:  ["]By the end of July, international tourist arrivals globally reached 84% of pre-pandemic levels.  In some European countries, such as France, Denmark and Ireland, tourism demand even surpassed its pre-pandemic level.  This may be great news economically, but there's concern that a return to the status quo is already showing dire environmental and social consequences.["]  As is typical of the leftist globalists, he wants to take something important away from the peasants — tourism.

So filled with fraud:  The green agenda and the rich who benefit from it.  The federal government essentially has ordered electric car companies to commit fraud. [...] These are the worthless carbon credits that companies such as Tesla got rich selling to companies like GM and Ford so they could pretend to reduce the carbon from their highly profitable gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.  Democrats claim they care about the poor and middle class but the poor have been screwed for years to pay more for their gas-powered vehicles to cover the massive losses from selling inefficient, expensive, impractical vehicles powered by the highly flammable pollutant lithium that the green pushers want to force all of us to buy. [...] In other words, the government, the carmakers and the green pushers knew this was a massive fraud but they didn't care.  They were greedy and the radical green agenda was all that mattered.  The people are irrelevant, especially the poor and middle class.  And of course, Democrat campaign workers posing as journalists, have participated in perpetuating the fraud by just repeating talking points without doing research or asking questions.

Drax Carbon Capture Could Cost Bill Payers £40 Billion.  Drax has received permission from the government to fit carbon capture technology to its wood-burning power plant, in a project that could cost bill-payers more than £40bn.  The energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, on Tuesday approved the project to convert two of its biomass units to use the technology.  Analysts have predicted that the revamp of the North Yorkshire site could be one of the most expensive energy projects in the world.  The project could add about £1.7bn to energy bills every year if the company acts on plans to fit all four of its biomass units with carbon capture technology, or a total of more than £43bn, according to Ember, a climate think tank.  In addition, the government is expected within days to extend a lucrative bill-payer-backed subsidy scheme that last year paid Drax more than £600m to burn trees for electricity until the end of the decade.  The decision is likely to anger environmentalists, who have campaigned against burning imported wood pellets and have opposed the multi-billion-pound subsidies paid to Drax over the past 12 years.

It appears the Church of the Climate Change Cult (CCCC) is losing some of its Flock, Part 5.  Due to the oppression on companies involved in the oil and gas sector by the CCCC coupled with the political support and pressure on oil and gas companies the latter have sought to develop the ability of carbon capture at a significant scale.  Canada's largest oil and gas companies have formed the Pathways Alliance in an effort to develop technology to satisfy the "cult" and the Trudeau led government.  Collectively the "Alliance" working with government bodies plan to spend $24.1 billion by 2030 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands operations by 22 million tonnes per year by 2030 and the Federal Government will contribute an additional $7 billion.  It sure seems to be aimed at driving up costs, perhaps to make renewable energy look cheaper?

Germany's Nationwide Discontent Will Be Fueled Further by Higher CO2 Tax — Planned For 2024!  The German government's CO2 price increase beginning from January 2024 will make petrol, heating and electricity more expensive.  Already Germany's industry is shrinking rapidly and farmers are now protesting nationally due to high fuels costs:  [Video clip]  These protests are rapidly expanding and a national day of protest in planned for January 8, 2024.  Many of the working class are expected to join in.  Yet, Germany's Socialist-Green government, led by Olaf Scholz, continues to stick to its plans to drastically increase the carbon price, beginning in January, and thus make life for millions even more painful.  Currently the price is 30 euros per ton and it will rise to 45 euros per ton beginning in 2024.

Coming Soon:  Your Travel Will Be Restricted By Personal Carbon Allowances.  A report on the future of travel and tourism, co-authored by a travel agency called Intrepid Travel and The Future Labs Institute, posits a future deeply impacted by climate change and restrictions on tourist travel to combat it.  "A Sustainable Future for Travel", warns of "travel extinction", where some areas suffer such radical climate change that all tourism there ceases, and "personal carbon allowances" that will restrict how often one is permitted travel. [...] For all practical purposes, your carbon emissions will line up with your energy usage, give or take a relatively narrow band of efficiencies (unless we have some kind of clean energy breakthrough, and the only viable one we have, nuclear, is not considered clean energy by the climate cult).  Said differently:  Your standard of living is your energy usage.  Reducing a society's energy usage is the same as reducing its living standards.

Diners hit with 'carbon footprint charge' on restaurant bills.  Diners are being hit with carbon footprint charges on restaurant bills to "counterbalance the environmental impact" of meals.  Customers have reported charity donations for a scheme called Carbon Friendly Dining being added to restaurant cheques, on top of service fees.  The scheme, an initiative backed by retail consultancy Lightspeed, aims to tackle global warming by charging each cover £1.23 to pay for fruit trees to be planted in developing countries.  Carbon Friendly Dining's website says the charge "helps counterbalance the environmental impact" of diners' meals and "also help some of the poorest communities on the planet".  Celebrity chefs including Marco Pierre White and James Martin are among a number of restaurant owners to have signed up.  The cost of the donation is added on to the bill at the end of the meal.  Diners can ask for it to be removed and staff are given instructions on how to take off the charge.

The Editor says...
This is an obvious scam.  How would you ever find out how the money is spent, or what percentage was paid for "administration" fees?

SEC abets latest climate cheat by Dems:  The Green New Deal is a shuck!  The latest scandal centers on Persefoni, an emissions-tracking company that counts at least three high-ranking former Securities and Exchange Commission officials as members.  Which just might have something to do with how it seemingly won huge sway in writing a new SEC rule demanding companies above a certain size must hand over their CO2 emissions data (including from their suppliers). The company, formed in 2020, is now poised to reap millions from firms flocking to purchase its services:  a software platform for comprehensively tracking CO2.  The SEC took six meetings — six! — with the for-profit company as the rule was being written.  Allison Herren Lee, appointed by President Joe Biden as acting chair of the SEC, was in charge of the public comment period around the new rule and stepped down in 2022 shortly before the rule was revealed.  Guess where she went?  Persefoni.

Carbon offsetting is a 'waste of time': Scientists.  Planting trees in vast schemes to 'offset' carbon emissions is harming nature, an Oxford study has claimed.  Celebrities and tycoons including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Elton John, Emma Watson and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have all said they have used offsetting to cancel out the greenhouse gases emitted by activities such as flying in private jets.  But when offsetting involves planting large numbers of a single types of tree, it can actually degrade the environment, the authors argued.

Traders in CO2 Credits Saddled With Vast Stranded-Asset Pile.  A number of major carbon traders are finding that offsets they bought may now be valueless.  Trafigura Group, the world's largest trader of carbon-removal credits, has suspended a consignment as it awaits the results of a probe into the forestry project behind the units.  The situation has led the company to replace the offsets in a contract with a corporate client and instead keep the stranded credits on its own books.  Hannah Hauman, global head of carbon trading at Trafigura — and a former oil trader — says the complete loss of value seen in some corners of the voluntary carbon market is unlike anything she's witnessed in oil markets.  Oil traders "see distressed or off-spec cargoes," but they "don't see defunct assets," she said in an interview.

Gotham's Airheaded Carbon Law.  On Earth Day 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio signed the Climate Mobilization Act (Local Law 97) into law, heralding a Green New Deal for New York City.  The measure, committing the city to full carbon neutrality by 2050, represented the most aggressive urban climate-change plan in America.  Its centerpiece provision seeks to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from buildings, a source that constitutes two-thirds of the city's total emissions.  "In one of the great coastal cities of the world, there's a lot we have to do to make sure that life in 2050 will be livable," preached the mayor.  Local Law 97 won't make life in New York more livable in 2050.  On the contrary, starting next year, when its harsh penalties take effect, the law will further raise costs in the world's priciest housing market, force middle-income New Yorkers to subsidize green industries, and — by discouraging newcomers and driving away existing residents — displace emissions to less carbon-efficient jurisdictions.  In exchange for nearly three decades of New York sacrifices, LL97 will reduce global climate emissions by an infinitesimal amount.

Africa Climate Summit Hears Calls for Carbon Tax on World's Richest Nations.  Economic success must have a price and a global tax on carbon emissions can help redress Africa's chronically low Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rates, Kenya's President William Ruto declared Tuesday as the first Africa Climate Summit began.  He pointed to "climate change" driven by successful, dynamic economies in Europe, North America and Asia, as a drain on Africa's economic progress and it's time to have a global conversation about a carbon tax on the world's richest nations.  "Those who produce the garbage refuse to pay their bills," Ruto said, according to AP, echoing others who have also called for carbon tax impositions.

Why wind and solar power are running out of juice.  Alternative energy madness — and that's what it is — has had its biggest impact in California.  But New York and New Jersey have adopted most of that state's mandates.  Sales of new internal combustion vehicles will be banned beginning in 2035 in the states.  All of the electricity sold to retail consumers will have to be "zero-emissions."  Homeowners and building owners will be forced to replace gas- and oil-burning space and water heaters with electric heat pumps.  And, gas stoves will be regulated out of existence.  New York also will soon implement another California import: a carbon "cap-and-invest" program, which will impose a tax on fossil fuels sold by wholesalers and utilities.  The billions of dollars collected each year will provide a green slush fund, allowing the governor and legislators to hand out money to their politically favored cronies, as has so often been the case in the past.  Washington State began its "cap-and-invest" program in January of this year.  Modeled after California's, Governor Jay Inslee promised the program would have "minimal impact, if any.  We are talking about pennies."  Instead, the program has raised gasoline prices — almost 50 cents per gallon so far this year.

Carbon Offsets from Forest Conservation Projects have Been Overestimated.  A new analysis reveals that emission reductions from forest conservation projects — sometimes used to "offset" carbon emissions from other sources — have been overestimated.  According to a new study, many REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programs have not significantly reduced deforestation, and those that did had benefits substantially lower than have been claimed.

Republicans Are Trying To Sneak A Carbon Tax Through The Back Door.  Fresh from the looming trainwreck that is the deal to increase the debt limit, four Republican senators recently signed onto legislation that would require the Biden administration to study the feasibility of ... a national tax on energy that would be collected at the gas pump and in electricity and heating bills.  The four Republicans — Senator Cramer (R-ND), Senator Cassidy (R-LA), Senator Graham (R-SC), and Senator Murkowski (R-AK) — joined five Democrats in asking Team Biden to determine the amount of energy used — and carbon dioxide emitted — by various countries in the production of essentially everything that makes modern life possible (aluminum, iron, steel, plastic, crude oil, batteries, etc.).  Eventually, the information would be used to impose tariffs on those countries who — in the view of the Biden crew — emitted too much carbon dioxide while creating those products.

South Dakota Farmers Face Carbon-capture Land Theft.  Farmers in South Dakota are facing egregious intimidation tactics by a private company that wants to use eminent domain to confiscate valuable farmland for carbon-capture pipelines.  Summit Carbon Solutions requested a restraining order against Brown County farmer Jerad Bossly.  The company claims he threatened the lives of its representatives who showed up unannounced to survey his property, a farm that has been in his family for four generations.  He told The New American that when they arrived, he was about 12 miles away, working in a field.  His wife was home, recovering from gallbladder surgery, and was taking a shower when the Summit surveyors knocked at her door.  They entered the house, but finding no one there, they proceeded to an outbuilding where one of them walked in.

The Editor says...
"Carbon capture pipelines" are one of the dumbest ideas ever proposed.  First of all, it's carbon dioxide they're after, not carbon.  Second, there's no real reason to remove carbon dioxide from the air, because that's what trees and grass do.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  Third, nobody will never be able to remove CO2 from the air as fast as China and India are putting it into the air.  But most of all, if CO2 must be extracted from the atmosphere, that can be done anywhere in the world.  If CO2 must be sequestered, extract it from the air at the same place it is to be stored.  No CO2 pipelines are necessary.

Battle Looms Among New York Democrats Over High Cost of Green Energy Plans.  The stage is set for a battle royale within the New York Democratic Party over climate policy.  Governor Hochul has suddenly realized that the cost of the state's planned emission reduction scheme will be "extraordinary," and is challenging her own party to make the climate law less damaging to New Yorkers' pocketbooks.  Will the left wing of her party go along?  In this year's budget negotiations Ms. Hochul and the legislature agreed to a cap-and-invest program as recommended by the state's Climate Action Council.  Cap-and-invest programs put an annual limit on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions New York businesses collectively emit, with the amount declining each year.  Businesses will have to bid for an ever-decreasing number of permits and naturally will pass the costs on to consumers by raising prices.

The Great Carbon Capture Scam.  The modern elite turn up their noses at the legions of the unenlightened, with their gas-guzzling trucks and single-use plastics, surely the cause of all our problems.  If we could just get rid of all that CO2, climate change would be solved, right?  But net-zero is as nonsensical — and as evil — as the sham witch trials of the Middle Ages.  Here's why it's nonsense.  Capturing even half of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would require capturing, transporting and storing 50 trillion cubic feet of gas annually, which is more than the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas the United States produces each year. [...] Even the most successful decarbonization does nothing to mitigate a changing climate.  So why are so many corporations buying into the sham?

Green New Deal Appeasement Leads Nowhere.  The sad story of North Dakota's largest coal-fired power plant, Coal Creek Station, should be an important lesson for anyone involved in carbon-based energy.  The prior owner of Coal Creek was Minnesota-based Great River Energy, which has come under growing pressure from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to rethink its coal dependency and was looking at its options, including mothballing the dependable plant that was producing reliable and affordable electricity for 1.7 million consumers in Minnesota and Wisconsin.  In 2021, Rainbow Energy, based in North Dakota, agreed to buy the plant.  The sale closed in mid-2022.  Rainbow Energy's plan to save Coal Creek Station included a large-scale carbon capture and storage project.  That plan should have been music to the ears of Green New Dealers.  Rainbow Energy's carbon sequestration plan had several significant technical hurdles and it was also going to be expensive.

Aussie Parliament Votes to Impose a Carbon [Dioxide] Tax.  There is an old proverb, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  The politicians currently in charge of Australia seem utterly clueless about how businesses make investment decisions.  The politicians in charge of Australia genuinely seem to believe punishing businesses with higher costs, new taxes and energy shortages (when the gas runs out, or the coal plants are decommissioned) will overcome their reluctance to invest in green technology.

Report: Carbon markets may hit family-scale farmers hard.  Family scale farmers in the Midwest may lose a lot to large agribusinesses through carbon markets, a new report says.  According to the report, "Agricultural Carbon Markets, Payments and Data: Big Ag's Latest Power Grab" by Open Markets Institute and Friends of the Earth, carbon markets programs will entrench chemical-intensive farming practices and increase corporate control of agriculture rather than reduce greenhouse gas emissions like politicians assert.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023's Growing Climate Solutions Act and the Sustainability Targets in Agriculture to Incentivize Natural Solutions Act, or SUSTAINS Act, support corporate carbon market programs.

Blue State Is Imposing A New Climate Policy And Gas Prices Are Already Skyrocketing.  Gas prices in the state of Washington have surged 40 cents since the new year, when a new law designed to penalize greenhouse gas emissions went into effect, according to the U.S.  Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA).  Washington businesses that produce more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year will either need to purchase allowances from the state's Department of Ecology at quarterly auctions, or trade for them with another business later, a practice commonly known as "cap-and-trade," Axios reported.  Since the law was implemented, the cost of gas in the state has skyrocketed from nearly $3.70 to just over $4.10, according to the EIA.

Claim: 90% of Verra Carbon Credits are worthless "Phantom Credits".  The Guardian has accused Verra Carbon, which sells credits to climate champions like Disney, Shell and Gucci, of not being worth the paper they are printed on.

Carbon Capture Is a Woke Fantasy.  Let's say you're brainstorming with some friends, trying to figure out how to cash in on the woke green wave.  It would probably not occur to the less boldly imaginative among us to propose 1) capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from agricultural areas covering five Midwestern states, 2) dehydrating and compressing it into liquid form at various capture locations, 3) transporting it via brand new pipelines, and 4) sequestering it into its permanent rocky tomb a mile beneath the surface, safe from climate change, nuclear war, and all but the most severe cosmic catastrophes.  As a bonus, liquid CO2 that survives burial has commercial industrial applications, like dry ice for food preservation or creating cloudy or foggy effects for Hollywood productions.  It's also used in fire extinguishers and to carbonate soft drinks, and it is even an important cooling agent for cryogenic freezing, as was done, for example, to Ted Williams and his son John Henry.  If you're wondering where the money comes from for these enterprises, the Department of Energy has announced many tens of millions of dollars in funding for research and implementation of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects.

The Editor says...
What is the point of sequestering the CO2 below ground, if it is going to be turned into dry ice, which will release the CO2 back into the atmosphere?

'Social cost of carbon' racks and stacks human life around the globe.  There are several things that stand out about the composition of Democrats, but one trait remains the most recognized: they love to flap their jaws about how much Black lives matter, and the endless ways in which racism against the BIPOC community (Blacks, Indigenous, People of Color) permeates every facet of conservative, Republican, or pro-American philosophy.  Yet, shocker, it's just a massive load of malarkey.

The EU Plans To Impose Direct Carbon Taxes On Individuals.  Would you like to pay a carbon tax every time that you turn your heater on?  What about every time that you fill up your vehicle with gasoline?  Incredibly, this will soon be what life is like in Europe.  When I first heard that the EU plans to impose direct carbon taxes on individuals, I thought that it must be just another false Internet rumor.  But it isn't a false rumor.  News sources in Europe are reporting on it, and you can find information about this plan on the official website of the European Parliament.  I don't know why the corporate media in the United States is not talking about this, because this is an enormous story.

Satellites detect no real climate benefit from 10 years of forest carbon offsets in California.  Many of the companies promising "net-zero" emissions to protect the climate are relying on vast swaths of forests and what are known as carbon offsets to meet that goal.  On paper, carbon offsets appear to balance out a company's carbon emissions:  The company pays to protect trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the air.  The company can then claim the absorbed carbon dioxide as an offset that reduces its net impact on the climate.  However, our new satellite analysis reveals what researchers have suspected for years:  Forest offsets might not actually be doing much for the climate.  When we looked at satellite tracking of carbon levels and logging activity in California forests, we found that carbon isn't increasing in the state's 37 offset project sites any more than in other areas, and timber companies aren't logging less than they did before.

Climate Change Professionals Now Provide Goals and Individual Allowances for Transportation, Food, and Clothing.  Carbon trading is the economic platform to generate government income.  That income then drives the carbon control financial mechanisms that will be deployed to the people.  At the end of the financial lane, we arrive at a world with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).  The digital money provides instant control over spending and carbon resource allocation.  For many years the carbon allowances for individuals were esoteric goals as presented by those who assemble at various global COP meetings, Davos and the World Economic Forum.  However, with rapid advances in the energy control process, a result of the pandemic and Build Back Better exit, the control officers are now quantifying the specifics for the individual citizen.

John Kerry defies logic and creates new extortion scheme to reduce 'carbon footprint'.  There's one thing we can know about the government — the goal is always to collect money.  The purpose of carbon credits has always been to make it look like corporate and foreign entities are reducing their carbon footprint when all they are doing is buying a worthless piece of paper.  While the U.S. drowns under climate tyranny, China and India get to pretend they will start reducing their carbon emissions down the road.  The scheme to sell "carbon credits" is nothing more than a sleight of hand, satisfying calls for action from the uninformed members of the public, all while bringing in extra revenue.  Big Government and Big Business unite in the messaging, pretending corporations reduced emissions, but in reality, all they did was write a check — and people cheer as if the companies did something.  Currently, companies like Ford and General Motors make lots of money selling big, gas-guzzling trucks, but then turn around and buy surplus carbon credits from companies like Tesla — a transaction which has made Elon Musk very rich.

The Green Energy Profiteering Scam.  When governments limit drilling and mining for hydrocarbons in the ground, they manufacture scarcity.  When governments set strict limits for how much oil, coal, and natural gas may be used commercially, such energies' broad industrial usefulness ensures increasingly high demand.  When companies are forced to limit their "carbon footprint" or purchase "carbon credits" (ordinary rocks) from licensed "green" vendors, then the government's preferred business partners reap windfalls (and the government's treasury mushrooms, too).  When only certain wealthy individuals and companies can afford artificially expensive hydrocarbon energies as regular business costs, then budding entrepreneurs and small firms can no longer compete.  Those at the peak of society's wealth pyramid have a much easier time staying on top when the same natural sources of hydrocarbon energy once used to amass fortunes are now denied to those who would do the same.  A war on "fossil fuels" is a superb tactic for protecting private market share.

Legislation Within the Biden Green New Deal, Inflation Reduction Act, Has Created a Domestic Carbon Trading Platform.  Deep inside the legislative language of the falsely titled "inflation reduction act", aka The Green New Deal legislative vehicle constructed by lobbyists and passed by congress, people are now starting to realize a carbon-trading system was created.  Ultimately, a carbon trading system has always been the holy grail of the people who run the western financial system and want to create mechanisms to control wealth by using the 'climate change' agenda.  A carbon trading system is a very lucrative financial transfer mechanism with a potential scale to dwarf the derivative, Wall Street betting, market.  Secondarily, such a market would cement the climate change energy policy making it very difficult to reverse.  The new creation as explained by the Wall Street Journal, holds similarities to the EPA ethanol program.

The globalists' secret, under-the-radar way to control everything in your life.  In 2010, cap-and-trade needed congressional approval, and with the Chicago Climate Exchange having already been established and waiting in the wings, climate goals would have been implemented swiftly.  But that cap-and-trade effort failed, and the Chicago Climate Exchange was dissolved. [...] It is the implementation of the climate agenda that failed in 2010.  Cap-and-trade failed because it allowed the climate agenda too much exposure.  Taking America into a worldwide climate web required another decade of hushed conspiracy, and it ceases to be a conspiracy theory when it becomes reality.  It was naïve to think the Chicago Climate Exchange would be the Gores, Clintons, Obamas, and all their associates brokering the air over third-world countries so that industrialized nations could stay in business.  That may indeed be what they had in mind, but technology gives them so much more control today.

Progressive Carbon Taxes Roll Back Progress on Conservation.  Consider the American income tax system.  Not all income is taxed the same — recognizing differences in the nature of income, and in the policies favored regarding certain investment or business practices, means that income is divided into different categories.  The three chief categories are earned (active) income, portfolio income, and passive income. [...] Carbon taxes are use taxes — they are applied like flat (regressive) taxes, on all carbon use without distinction.  These are generally levied against fossil fuels like natural gas, fuel oil, or gasoline, but also on electricity use.  These are essentially "sin taxes" designed to curtail or reduce use of these commodities to "save the planet."  In truth these will do no such thing, and do little if anything to actually curtail consumption. [...] It is most definitely not equitable whatsoever.  In classic regressive fashion, progressives who tax these fuels shift the greatest burden onto those least able to bear it.

Wildfires are destroying California's forest carbon credit reserves-study.  Carbon offsets generated from forests to counteract future climate-warming emissions from California's big polluters are rapidly being depleted as trees are ravaged by wildfire and disease, new research published on Friday suggests.  One of California's key policy tools to combat climate change may be falling far short of its goals, the researchers said — raising questions about similar carbon offset programs around the world.

Supreme Court hands Biden admin major win for climate agenda.  The Supreme Court denied a petition from 10 Republican-led states Thursday requesting it to block a key Biden administration climate policy.  The decision ensures that President Joe Biden's so-called "social cost" of carbon policy — which assigns an estimated dollar value or cost to every ton of carbon emissions, according to the Government Accountability Office — can remain in place and be used for future federal permitting processes.  The high court rejected states' April 27 petition without giving a reason or listing which justices opposed it, according to a one-page filing published on the Supreme Court docket.

Canadian Multinational Executive Outlines Tech Initiative to Create Consumer Carbon Footprint Tracker.  It is important to remember the ultimate goal of the 'climate change' promotors (World Economic Forum) is not an energy system that changes the global climate.  The goal of the 'climate change' group is to create a carbon trading system; a new financial mechanism (a global tax program) to control human activity on a world-wide basis.  This system also needs a digital identity in order to work.  You cannot tax, or trade, things you cannot track.  As a result, there was always going to be a need for an individual tracking and monitoring system that would connect to the global digital identity and determine the carbon footprint.  The carbon taxing and trading system will be more financially lucrative than any stock exchange or monetary banking system.  It is the ultimate human control mechanism, and the preferred way to redistribute wealth under the guise of global equity.

The Absurdity of Using the Biosphere to Power the Technosphere.  There are two main types of biofuel, bioethanol and biodiesel.  The primary sources of bioethanol are corn and sugarcane; the primary source of biodiesel is palm oil.  In both cases, the spread of plantations to grow these crops has devastated some of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet.  From cane ethanol in Brazil, to palm oil in Indonesia, thousands of square miles of rainforest are lost every year to new plantations.  In 2016, for a few brief weeks, the world paid attention to the problems being caused by biofuel production.  That was when forest fires raged across Indonesia, sending a toxic haze across thousands of miles, making the air barely breathable for millions of people in Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Singapore and Malaysia.  The cause of these fires?  Land owners burning rainforests to make room for palm oil plantations.  The idea that achieving alleged "carbon neutrality" is a sufficient benefit to offset the replacement of rainforest with monocrop plantations of palm trees and sugar cane is ridiculous.

New MasterCard to monitor cardholders' carbon footprint, cap purchases.  Auto manufacturers, companies, and governments increasingly have the power to track our every movement and prevent us from driving our own vehicles.  Supposedly democratic governments can lock us down or even freeze our bank accounts on a whim (see also "Canada" and "Trudeau").  In this increasingly dystopian world, large multinational corporations are working hand-in-glove with said governments to reshape society in their preferred image, [...].  To that end, MasterCard and the United Nations have joined forces to produce a credit card that measures your carbon footprint.  Once you reach your "limit," you can't purchase anything else... at least with that card.

Mastercard Introducing Its Own Social Credit System In The Name Of Climate Change.  MasterCard and the United Nations have joined forces to produce a credit card that measures your carbon footprint, once you reach your limit you can no longer purchase.  This seems to be based on China's social credit score system where you are denied services and entrance to certain venues based on your behavior and purchases.  [Video clip]

ANWR in the future
Biden administration resumes plans for oil and gas drilling on federal land.  The Biden administration is finally moving forward with re-starting the leasing of federal land for oil and gas drilling.  The Interior Department made the announcement after a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the administration last week.  The "social cost of carbon" value is factored in measuring the cost of climate change in the drilling process.  The court ruled that the administration can use a higher calculation value of per ton of greenhouse gases emitted in the federal decision-making process.  When Joe Biden ran for president, he promised to stop federal drilling auctions, but that effort has caused Republican-led states to file court challenges.  Since he took office in January 2021, Biden's administration has provided a string of stops and starts to the federal oil and gas leasing program.  Biden wants a return to the Obama-era value of $50 per ton of greenhouse gases emitted, while Republicans prefer the calculation used during the previous administration of $10 per ton.

The Editor says...
Any price on carbon dioxide emissions is completely arbitrary, and could easily go negative someday soon when enough people realize that more CO2 in the air is a good thing.  It's nothing but a tax.  It's a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, which are not only beneficial, but almost completely unavoidable.

NPR has figured out that most companies are faking their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint.  Politicians, CEOs, scientists, and others fly in private jets to endless gab-fests where they pretend to care about their carbon footprint.  Now NPR has put written an article about how big companies are essentially cooking the books.  They aren't actually reducing their carbon footprint.  Nope — they are purchasing worthless carbon offsets to pretend they are complying.  Twenty-four out of 25 companies, including Walmart and Amazon, write checks to buy carbon offsets to fake compliance.  Why do these companies pretend they are actively reducing their carbon footprint?  So leftists, including journalists, will get off their backs.

CEI's New Anti-Carbon Tax Study.  CEI has a new study out this week titled, "Why Carbon Taxes Are Anti-Growth, Anti-Consumer, and Politically Dangerous for Conservatives."  It develops the following points.  A tax on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, contrary to its advocates' claims, is a market rigging policy, not a free market one.  Its purpose is to drive investment into renewable energy sources not by lowering their cost or improving their performance but by handicapping competing technologies.  Carbon taxes would inflict substantial losses on GDP, job creation, and household income.  Even the most aggressive CO2 tax would have negligible climate effects, and costs would far exceed benefits.

Multi-state carbon tax scheme on gasoline collapses.  A dozen states have been considering a tax on carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel, starting at about 10 cents a gallon and rising to perhaps 40 cents over time.  The idea was higher prices would discourage driving, and the revenue would be used to promote electric vehicles (EV) and public transportation.  Last December, only three state governors signed onto this project (Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts).  This week, two of the three state governors (Connecticut and Massachusetts) abandoned the project, effectively ending it.

Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislation.  Progressives are angry that moderate Democratic Senator Joe Machin has reportedly opposed the inclusion of climate-related legislation in President Joe Biden's budget "This is absolutely the most important climate policy in the package," said Leah Stokes, a Canadian political scientist who helped write the legislation.  "We fundamentally need it to meet our climate goals.  That's just the reality."  But that's not the reality.  The "Clean Energy Performance Program" is not needed to meet climate goals, and might actually undermine them.  Consider Waxman-Markey.  That's the name of the "cap and trade" climate legislation that passed the House but failed in the Senate in 2010.  It had a climate goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020.  Instead, the U.S. reduced its emissions by 22 percent.  Had cap and trade legislation passed in the Senate, emissions would have declined less than 22 percent, because Waxman-Markey so heavily subsidized coal and other fossil fuels.

Democrats' Climate Change Predictions May Not Materialize, but Their Taxes Undoubtedly Will.  Behold the Democrats and their "imminent doom" climate change predictions.  It is quite possible there has never been a more error-prone business than the climate alarmism prediction business.  [Link to another article]  As the article demonstrates, Big Media has long been doing its part.  It has spent the last half-century jamming climate alarmism down our throats.  Trying to have us forget about the last failed prediction — by immediately pivoting to the next failed prediction. [...] This fake story on a fake poll on real taxes imposed in the name of fake "climate change" follows immediately on the heels of Democrats proposing real taxes in the name of fake "climate change."  Why should a half-century of climate alarmism being very, very wrong get in the way of Democrats really taxing [...] us in the name of climate alarmism?

Climate Regulations Reach Critical Turning Point in Pennsylvania.  If an independent panel votes down proposed regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions in Pennsylvania, state lawmakers will have added leverage to prevent Gov. Tom Wolf from joining a multistate initiative to address climate change.  However, if the panel approves the regulations in a meeting Wednesday, Wolf's executive agencies likely would gain latitude to move forward with plans to implement cap-and-trade rules in step with 11 other states in New England and the mid-Atlantic that are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.  Either way, September is shaping up to be a critical month for the future of carbon taxes and other anti-carbon measures that have drawn bipartisan opposition in the Pennsylvania General Assembly.  Since the commonwealth is No. 2 only to Texas in oil and gas production, according to government figures, the final decision on the cap-and-trade proposals will have significant ramifications across state lines.

Pennsylvania DEP releases new carbon cap and trade modeling.  State environmental officials released new carbon cap and trade modeling this week as Pennsylvania's scheduled entry into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative draws nearer.  The Department of Environmental Protection provided the latest data to the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee this week during the first of a handful of scheduled meetings with public advisory boards invested in the final regulations anticipated for adoption later this year.  Allen Landis, executive director of the DEP's Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority, said Monday that key take-aways of the updated modeling shows consumer electricity prices will increase between 84 cents and $2.70 over the next decade as a result of RGGI participation.

Climate bill would tax carbon [dioxide] in New York.  While the federal government and many states have been sluggish in taking definitive action against climate change, New York has offered a range of examples of what a state can do by itself.  The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, a landmark 2019 law, mandated that the state reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.  The Climate Action Council of experts established by the legislation is expected to work out all the details in a plan due by the end of 2022.  And offshore wind and solar energy projects got a boost in the recently passed state budget.  None of these efforts, however, definitively answer a multibillion-dollar question:  How is the state going to pay for all of that?

The Editor says...
Who picked the 85 percent figure, and the 1990 starting point?  How do they know how much carbon dioxide is optimal?  What trade-offs were considered?

Liberals will defend carbon tax at the polls after Supreme Court win:  Environment minister.  The Liberal government has successfully defended its carbon tax in the courts, and it will defend it at the polls too, says the federal environment minister.  In a 6-3 decision on Thursday [3/25/2021], the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the federal carbon pricing regime is constitutional.  The decision means the government can move forward with its plan to ensure every province and territory has a price on carbon emissions, despite strong objections from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.  Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson called it "an important step forward in the fight against climate change," and says it will likely be a key issue in the next federal election.

Biden sued by 12 states over executive order.  Biden has just been sued by 12 states over his trillion dollar executive order on climate change: [...] If there's any thing Democrats love it's an "enormous expansion of federal regulatory power", and they use it to try and kill industries that they don't like, like the coal industry.  I'm betting that's what they intend to do here, by forcing companies to pay tons of money for expensive filtering technology to 'scrub' greenhouse gasses from their emissions.  These 'social costs', whatever their eventual impact, could very well bankrupt companies — unless they are stopped.

Why 'Social Cost of Carbon' Is Most Useless Number You've Never Heard Of.  On his very first day in office, President Joe Biden issued an executive order resurrecting the Obama-era social cost of carbon, intended to quantify the economic impact of climate change.  The administration on Feb. 26 issued an interim estimate reporting that these damages are approximately $51 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions.  Dubbed by some as "the most important number you've never heard of," the social cost of carbon is defined as the economic damages associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across a particular time horizon.  That metric, relied upon heavily by the Obama administration, has been used as the basis for regulatory policy in the energy sector of the economy.

Climate Change Initiative Would Raise Costs Without Environmental Benefits, Critics Say.  If Pennsylvania joins a multistate climate change agreement that restricts carbon dioxide emissions, energy prices will increase and jobs will be lost in response to new regulatory burdens that won't produce any environmental or health benefits, according to public policy analysts who took part in virtual public hearings earlier this month.  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, also known as RGGI, is a "cap and trade" agreement among 10 New England and Mid-Atlantic states that requires power plants to purchase permits to emit CO2.  The participating states set a regional cap on the amount of emissions that is permissible.  But power plants can purchase and trade emissions allowances during quarterly auctions.  Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, took executive action in October 2019 directing his Department of Environmental Protection to draft regulations so the commonwealth could join RGGI.  This past September, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board voted to approve regulations in step with what Wolf proposed.

Sorry Virtue Signalers, A Carbon Tax Would Have No Impact on Climate.  Many of America's corporate and academic elites have united to advocate for a carbon tax.  With all the money and brains behind the self-anointed "Climate Leadership Council" (CLC) you would think it would be able to figure out — the math is simple — that a carbon tax will have no effect on climate.  There are reasons they haven't.  The CLC is undertaking a media and lobbying blitz to push for a $40-per-ton national carbon tax, escalating by 5% per year.  The CLC calls this "the most cost-effective, environmentally ambitious and politically viable climate solution."  A $40 carbon tax would immediately raise the price of oil by $17, or to about 133% of today's prices.  We're told not to fret the price increase because the government will remit the tax back to taxpayers as a "carbon dividend."

See you at the Supreme Court, Ottawa says after Alberta demands carbon tax be killed.  On Monday [2/24/2020], Alberta's top court declared the federal carbon tax unconstitutional.  On Wednesday, the province's justice minister demanded that the federal government remove the levy and reimburse what Albertans have already paid.  On Friday, the federal government responded:  See you in court.  "The Supreme Court will determine if a federal price on carbon pollution is constitutional, a decision that will answer this important question for our country as a whole," Federal Justice Minister David Lametti wrote to Alberta Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer, in a letter obtained by CBC News.

Oregon House GOP joins Senate Republicans' walk out in protest of cap-and-trade.  House Republicans walked out of the Oregon Capitol on Tuesday, joining their Senate colleagues in protest of a greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade bill.  "Oregon House Republicans are taking a stand, with working families, in opposing cap and trade and this rigged process," House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, said in a statement.  House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said she has and will continue to make an effort toward compromise, but that isn't possible if Republicans are not in the Capitol.

Attack of the green carbon counters as business world reduced to tallying emissions.  Locked down rail transportation is just the latest blow to a Canadian economy that seems to be moving backward.  Canadians who previously marvelled at their ability to work the land, build enterprise, lay rail and produce industrial and commercial wealth are now being told that the only measure that matters is whether their work and enterprise add or subtract from the nation's carbon count and improve or jeopardize Canada's ability to meet its international carbon emissions targets.  From pipeline to electricity production to industrial development in Atlantic Canada, the business world has been reduced to counting carbon emissions.  Forget revenue estimates, profit projections, innovation, market breakthroughs, lower cost structures, new technologies, better jobs, future economic growth prospects and a richer country.

Transportation and Climate Initiative:  Caution lights are flashing.  The Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) has generated lots of buzz recently.  Understandably so. [...] TCI seeks to reduce carbon emissions from cars, trucks, buses and other modes of transportation by creating a cap and invest program.  The program would cap carbon emissions and sell allowances to fuel suppliers, called regulated entities.  Regulated entities include large storage tanks that hold fuel before the tankers deliver it to your local gas station.  The cap would decrease over time, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by lowering the total amount of emissions allowed and encouraging businesses and consumers to switch to alternative fuel options as the price of fossil fuels increases.  The model for TCI is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).  RGGI is a cap-and-invest program begun over a decade ago aimed at electricity generators, the largest source of carbon emissions at the time.  Now, the largest source of carbon emissions is the transportation sector.

UN climate talks face collapse after world leaders cannot agree on compensation deal for poorer nations.  A UN climate summit in Madrid risked collapsing Saturday after all-night negotiations between countries left them more divided than ever over on how to fight global warming and pay for its ravages.  Diplomats from rich nations, emerging giants and the world's poorest countries — each for their own reasons — found fault in a draft agreement put forward by host Chile in a botched attempt to strike common ground.

Pennsylvania Governor's Cap-and-Trade Scheme is All Pain and No Gain.  Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's executive order imposing a cap-and-trade system on carbon dioxide emissions is easily the most harmful act he has taken in his two terms as chief executive of the state.  As one of the most liberal governors in the nation, his progressive impulses have, until now, been constrained by the Republican-controlled House and Senate.  His move to bring the Keystone State into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and impose an economically crippling carbon dioxide credit trading scheme is an attempted end-run around the legislature, implementing a de facto energy tax on fossil fuels without legislative approval.

You Know, Carbon Credits Don't Actually Offset Your Carbon Footprint.  For everyone who likes to fly on airplanes or drive cars but feels guilty about the carbon footprint, there is a lovely way to assuage your guilt without making any actual lifestyle changes: buying carbon credits.  Many companies are selling such credits to consumers, with the vague promise of offsetting your carbon footprint.  However, no one can actionably explain how paying to offset your carbon footprint actually counters the alleged extreme harm caused by everyday life.  Nevertheless, one of the first things on many of these businesses' websites is asking for money, either through purchasing a carbon credit or a donation.  In looking closely at the companies that sell carbon credits, it becomes clear they have found a clever way to profit off guilt over climate change.  One such company, Cool Effect, solicits $129.98 right off the bat when you click on their website, to offset a year's worth of carbon usage.

Another Round of Energy Pork.  The House has produced a draft piece of "green energy" legislation that would yield massive costs, massive economic distortions and massive environmental damage.  Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California, justifies his "Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now (GREEN) Act," as "a comprehensive approach to addressing the threat of climate change through our tax code."  Put aside the fact that there is no evidence — none — that there is a climate "crisis" to be addressed.  Instead, nowhere have the supporters presented an actual estimate of the "climate" effect of this ostensible effort to achieve "net zero" U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.  Applying the climate model used by the Environmental Protection Agency, under assumptions that exaggerate the effects of reduced emissions:  0.17 degree Celsius by 2100.  Under assumptions more consistent with the recent scientific literature:  0.08 degree Celsius.

The Editor says...
Before any of this effort is undertaken, it should first be proven that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is harmful, that man-made sources of CO2 outweigh natural sources, and that the greenhouse effect is approaching a "thermal runaway" condition.  None of these has been proven.  Thus it is apparent that the government is in a big rush to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Reality check: [The] Drive for rapid 'net zero' emissions [is] a guaranteed loser.  [Scroll down]  We just have to look to New Zealand, the only country to have actually made an estimate of the cost of achieving carbon neutrality.  New Zealand's prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, received plaudits this year for passing legislation designed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.  To her credit, her government asked a respected economics institute to estimate the cost.  This revealed that getting to 50 percent below 1990-levels in 2050 would cost at least 5 percent of GDP annually by 2050.  Why so expensive?  For the same reason it is expensive anywhere:  Weaning economies off fossil fuels and onto pricier, less efficient forms of energy reduces growth and prosperity.  The impact quickly adds up.  For New Zealand, the cost is similar to today's entire expenditure on socialized education and health care.

Chile and the revolt against climate-change policies.  Add Chile to the growing list of countries whose governments are suffering a backlash as average people, tired of elites forcing costly climate policies down their throats, take to the streets to protest higher energy costs.  Although, undoubtedly, many issues stoked the protests on the streets across Chile, the Washington Post rightly notes that what finally drove the public to take to the streets was the government's decision to curry favor with international agencies by pushing expensive energy restrictions to fight purported climate change.  As the Post states, "[T]he catalyst [behind the protests] was a proposal to raise public transport fares and energy bills.  There is ample evidence from across the world that these will incite rebellion like nothing else — a point that those who hope to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions via a carbon tax should bear in mind."

Squeaky clean, huh?  Obama forgot about these 25 scandals.  [#23] Cap & Trade:  When in doubt, bypass Congress.  In April 2010, the U.S. Senate rejected the "cap-and-trade" bill, which created a carbon-tax system and amplified federal power over the energy industry.  Nonetheless, Obama's EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, declared carbon dioxide a pollutant.  Before Congress had voted on the matter, on Dec. 7, 2009, Jackson signed an "endangerment finding" labeling CO2 and five other gases — methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6 ) — threats to human health.  That step provided the EPA with the authority to regulate the gases in the absence of congressional approval, and the federal agency rolled out new rules.

Climate and the Money Trail.  Several years before Al Gore and others decided to use a young Swedish school girl to be the poster child for climate action urgency, or in the USA the call of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a complete reorganization of the economy around a Green New Deal, the giants of finance began devising schemes for steering hundreds of billions of future funds to investments in often worthless "climate" companies.  In 2013 after years of careful preparation, a Swedish real estate company, Vasakronan, issued the first corporate "Green Bond."  They were followed by others including Apple, SNCF and the major French bank Credit Agricole.  In November 2013 Elon Musk's problem-riddled Tesla Energy issued the first solar asset-backed security.  Today according to something called the Climate Bonds Initiative, more than $500 billion in such Green Bonds are outstanding.

Democrats Hand Trump Another Issue.  During last week's climate town halls, several Democratic presidential candidates endorsed a carbon tax.  It's an idea Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton shied away from.

Dems Endorse Huge Tax Hikes on Lower- and Middle-Income American Taxpayers.  CNN hosted a discussion yesterday [9/4/2019] with the major Democratic candidates about global warming ... oops, I mean climate change ... no, sorry, the preferred term is now "climate crisis."  Shockingly, something newsworthy actually happened.  As reported by The New York Times, most of the candidates expressed support for a big carbon tax that would be especially painful for poor and middle-class taxpayers.

The climate change crisis racket.  [Scroll down]  Alas, perhaps there's another answer to Democrats' incessant crying about climate change.  It all comes down to the green — green cash money that is.  Carbon credits are tradable certificates.  Each one allows the holder to emit one ton of carbon emissions.  This has created an extremely valuable market out of the polluted thin air for buying and selling these carbon credit permits.  The CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) allows businesses, mutual funds, and other investment groups to trade these carbon credits and offsets like any other stock.  Interestingly, the public company that runs the CCX also runs the European Climate Exchange.  More importantly, it's not having any effect on actual total carbon emissions.

Taxes do not generate money.
Senators to unveil carbon tax bill to generate $2.5 trillion in 10 years.  Two Democratic U.S. senators will unveil a bill on Thursday [7/25/2019] to curb climate change by slapping a fee on oil, natural gas and coal and delivering most of the revenues to low- and middle-income Americans, one of the lawmakers said. 

The Editor says...
No legislation of any kind will stop the climate from changing.

Resources for Making the Case against Carbon Taxes.  A carbon tax will not be pro-growth.  Most carbon tax scenarios reduce GDP for the entirety of the 22-year forecast period.  Better than break-even economic performance may not be possible unless revenue is devoted entirely to corporate tax relief.  A lump-sum rebate results in lost GDP equal to between $3.76 trillion and $5.92 trillion over the 22-year forecast period.  A carbon tax is not an efficient revenue raiser for tax reform.  Using standard scoring conventions, a carbon tax is likely to only produce net revenue available for tax reform of 32 cents on the dollar.

Logging Trucks And Tractors Descend On Oregon Capitol To Protest Cap-And-Trade Bill.  Semi-trucks and tractors surrounded the Oregon Capitol Thursday to show support for GOP lawmakers who agreed Friday to return for weekend sessions.  The protest against climate legislation was held as most of the state senators stayed in hiding, despite Democrats' assurances that they do not have the votes to pass HB 2020, the cap-and-trade bill that Republicans walked out on June 20, the Associated Press reported.

Mitt Romney Open To Considering "Carbon Tax" Bill.  Let's be clear about a few things regarding "carbon taxes".  First, the system of taxing carbon emissions, also known as "cap-n-trade", has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.  Second a "carbon tax" is the holy grail for the totalitarian globalist world view.  The concept of a tax on carbon emissions was developed inside the same financial network of multinational monetary interests that control the current global trade system.  Powerful financial interests directly connected to The World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO), together with global banking interests connected to Wall Street and all international stock-trading systems, were the first to put together a "cap-n-trade" proposal after the financial collapse in 2008.

How to lose the unloseable election: be anti-coal.  The climate vote evaporated.  Australians want the Adani coal mine built and running.  They also aren't willing to vote for climate change action, even in some of the wealthiest inner city seats.  All the badly designed polls supporting "climate action" [misled] the pundits.  If only they had read skeptical blogs, they'd have known that people can tick the believer box free of charge, but when it costs, climate action always ranks at the bottom, and no one wants to pay for it themselves, not even $10 a month.  If people don't even pay for carbon flight offsets or donate to environmental causes, they certainly won't consciously vote to lose jobs and spend billions.  Ultimately, even in 2019, more than half of all Australians don't buy the UN climate scare.  It was only 2017 when 60% of Australians said they were OK with dumping Paris if they could cut their electricity bills.

Environmental Hypocrites of the Left.  [Scroll down]  That gap between the Left's loud talk and their unwillingness to make personal sacrifices is not an accident.  It is now part of their dogma. [...] Only the sacrifices made by others will make a difference.  This dichotomy is evident in my home state of Washington, where politicians pride themselves on showing "leadership" in the effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. [...] Ironically, though, many who demand action do little of it themselves.  For only a few dollars a month, anyone who supports renewable energy can already buy renewable-energy credits (RECs), ensuring that there is enough renewable energy on the grid to cover their personal use.  I asked one politician pushing for the 100 percent-renewable requirement if she buys RECs to cover her environmental impact.  She admitted that she does not and has no plans to do so.

Hawaii Swamped by Carbon-Dioxide Tax Bills.  Multiple carbon-dioxide tax bills are under consideration in the current session of the Hawaii State Legislature.  The purpose of a so-called carbon tax is to decrease carbon-dioxide emissions by levying a tax based on the amount of emissions produced.  Hawaiians already pay more for electricity than residents of any other state, at 26.05 cents per kilowatt hour, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports.  Hawaii's retail electric rates are 148 percent higher than the national average.

The Economic Argument for a Carbon Tax Is a Work of Fiction.  Regarding the regulations, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), CAFE mandates requiring ever higher fuel efficiency in our vehicles, and the so-called "Clean Power Plan" which punishes coal-fired power plants:  Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that these are absurdly inefficient regulations, even if we stipulate the basic climate change externality framework.  But these economists should ask themselves:  If these regulations are so inefficient, then why do they exist in the first place?  The answer, of course, is that they are there for political reasons, not because they passed a legitimate cost-benefit test.

The carbon tax — a wolf in green clothing.  For the wealthy, a carbon tax would be an inconvenience.  For the rest of us, a carbon tax is a catastrophe.  How very revealing it is that the same political group which loudly proclaims their concern for the poor and disadvantaged by promoting more of their government provided compassion, is willing to sacrifice those same souls on the green altar of carbon neutrality.  Besides, this is not an argument about climate change, this is an argument about pure economics.  Whatever you believe about the effects of CO2 emissions, this tax is simply wrong.  So, yes, this proposed tax is not a symbol of sound environmental stewardship.  It is a symbol of the callous cluelessness of its proudly self-righteous proponents.

Flaws with a "Green New Deal," Part 2 of 2.  Even on standard Keynesian terms, it makes no sense to embark on a $1 trillion government spending program with official unemployment below 4 percent and the Fed raising rates to rein in price inflation.  Worse, historically the actual New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the nation's suffering, making the Great Depression linger for a decade. [...] The various proposals would waste enormous sums of money in pursuit of impossible goals that would raise energy prices and hurt consumers.  Even if one believes that carbon dioxide emissions constitute a "negative externality," the measures in the proposed Green New Deal would achieve emission reductions at a much higher cost than necessary.  And we see once again that the progressive Left does not think a simple "price on carbon" is enough to achieve their agenda.  Conservatives and libertarians should therefore be under no illusions when the idea of a "carbon tax deal" is floated.

2018 Saw a Global Revolt Against Climate Change Policies.  Despite increasingly apocalyptic warnings from U.N. officials, 2018 has seen a number of high-profile defeats for policies aimed at fighting global warming.  Politicians and voters pushed back at attempts to raise energy prices as part of the climate crusade.  It started in June with election of Ontario Premier Doug Ford.  Ontario residents overwhelmingly voted Ford's conservative coalition into power on a platform that included axing the Canadian province's cap-and-trade program.

If we all pay this tax, the weather will never change again!  And if you believe that, you should never vote.
The Proposed 'Climate Damages Tax' Is Dumb and Dangerous.  Among the myriad dumb ideas put forth by climate change activists, arguably the dumbest is the Climate Damages Tax (CDT) promoted last week at the United Nations climate conference in Poland.  No matter what one believes about the causes of climate change, the CDT would have no impact on climate and would simply damage domestic fossil fuel companies.  According to the Climate Damages Tax report launched during the UN climate conference by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Practical Action, and others in the "social justice" arena, the CDT would be a new charge imposed on coal, oil, and natural gas producers to account for the damage their products supposedly cause to the climate and to the world's most vulnerable populations.

Carbon prices — Set to KILL California economy, families and businesses.  If you are staying in California be prepared for a government policy to skyrocket the cost of doing business in this Third World State.  The current price is $14.65.  "As required by legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017 extending the state's cap-and-trade program through 2030, the state Air Resources Board has proposed a new ceiling on the price of carbon credits, per ton, at auction.  Until now, California has not set a price at the high end.  Regulators have proposed a ceiling of $61.25, which, if approved, would take effect in 2021. [...] That is right — they want to increase the price by four times.  But, they say it will never happen.  Social Security started at 1%.  They wanted a maximum of 2%, but told it could never get that high — today it is closer to 15%.

Climate Interventionists Won't Stop with a Carbon Tax.  Say what you will about the climate policy discussions at Vox, but they don't mince words.  They come right out and tell you how much they want to micromanage every last detail of your life.  Vox's resident expert, David Roberts, recently interviewed policy wonk and author Hal Harvey, to discuss which areas of society government should regulate in the name of slowing climate change.  Everything was on the table — ranging from building codes to auto fuel efficiency to diet to family size — with the only debate being over the relative results from the various interventions.  Among other results, this peek into the interventionist mentality should serve as a wake-up call for the few writers who keep charmingly calling on libertarians and conservatives to strike a carbon tax deal with progressive leftists.  As the Roberts/Harvey discussion says quite plainly, a carbon tax is just one arrow in the quiver of those championing aggressive government intervention to slow climate change.

France's Macron learns the hard way: green taxes carry political risks.  When Emmanuel Macron rose to power, he put the environment at the heart of his agenda.  Eighteen months later, anger over those policies has stoked protests that are a huge challenge for the French president.

France May Be Ahead Of The Curve When It Comes To Global Warming Policy Backlash.  The French love a good riot, but the political backlash to the French government's plans to increase carbon taxes on fuel could be a harbinger of what's to come in countries committed to the global warming crusade.  Calls from the United Nations and environmentalists for the world to "do more" to stem projected global warming might run up against economic realities.  But France could be a taste of what's to come if more governments try to tax carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate scientist hit with campus 'inquisition' over post opposing carbon tax.  University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass has been called plenty of names, including climate "denier," but it wasn't until he came out against the state's proposed carbon tax last month that he was accused of being a racist.  Since then, Mr. Mass said he has been upbraided by the university's diversity dean and subjected to a faculty "inquisition," events that have stoked alarm about the threat posed by campus climate-change activism to academic freedom.

France 'yellow vest' protests should be a lesson for green activists in the US.  The proximate cause of what's being coined the "Yellow Vest" protests may shock you:  climate taxes.  French President Emanuel Macron has fully bought into the elite, environmentalist position that governments must do everything, including implementing regressive taxes on the most disadvantaged, to restrict so-called dirty transportation like driving.  That's why Macron championed an "eco-tax" that would raise fuel prices in order to discourage driving.  Diesel fuel was set to rise by 24 cents a gallon and gasoline by 12 cents a gallon in January.  That may not seem like a lot, but the French are already paying exorbitant fuel prices, roughly $6.57 per gallon in U.S. dollars.  You can see why the French people would say enough is enough.

Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes — Is America Next?  The City of Lights, Paris, has been illuminated in recent days by cars set alight by thousands of protesting "Yellow Vests" — largely middle class people who earn their living by driving or who commute to get to work.  The cause of their ire is a scheduled 25 cents-per-gallon increase in gas taxes, and about 10 cents on diesel, to fight climate change.  French President Macron, deeply unpopular, just reversed course on the new green tax — Parisians are already paying about $7.06 per gallon for gasoline, almost half of that in taxes.  If Paris streets burned over a proposed 25 cents per gallon climate change tax, imagine the global conflagration over a $49 per gallon tax.

Trump Says Paris Climate Accord 'Isn't Working Out So Well For Paris' As Riots Engulf The City.  For weeks, tens of thousands of French have risen up to oppose planned hikes to carbon taxes on diesel and gasoline as part of Macron's climate agenda.  Carbon taxes provided the spark for what's morphed into protests against Macron's attempts to revamp France's economy.

France, Taxes, and Riots.  Maybe there's hope for France.  When Greeks, Belgians, and the Brits riot, it's because they want more handouts.  The French, by contrast, have taken to the streets to protest higher taxes. [...] I joked years ago that the French national sport is taxation.  It's so bad that thousand of taxpayers have faced effective tax rates of more than 100 percent.

France Suspends Climate Tax Following Weeks Of Anti-Macron Protests.  French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced Tuesday that the government is suspending a gas tax that roiled the country in widespread violence and chaos.  The government proposed a slew of new carbon taxes designed to wean consumers off fossil fuels and transfer to electric cars.  The price hikes, however, triggered a wave of unrest unseen in recent decades.  Tuesday's announcement represents a major reversal for President Emmanuel Macron's government, which initially stood its ground.  Critics are accusing the president of being out of touch with the plight of normal French citizens.

Macron makes U-turn on fuel-tax increases in face of 'yellow vest' protests.  France's prime minister on Tuesday [12/4/2018] suspended planned increases to fuel taxes for at least six months in response to weeks of sometimes violent protests, the first major U-turn by President Emmanuel Macron's administration after 18 months in office.

The Global Carbon Tax Revolt.  France's violent Yellow Vest protests are now about many domestic concerns, but it's no accident that the trigger was a fuel-tax hike.  Nothing reveals the disconnect between ordinary voters and an aloof political class more than carbon taxation.  The fault line runs between anti-carbon policies and economic growth, and France is a test for the political future of emissions restrictions.  France already is a relatively low-carbon economy, with per-capita emissions half Germany's as of 2014.  French governments have nonetheless pursued an "ecological transition" to further squeeze carbon emissions from every corner of the French economy.  The results are visible in the Paris streets.

Vandals, or Militants?  The origin of the present protest is not the price of bread but an increase in gasoline taxes.  Yet, with gasoline now occupying a central place in our way of life as bread once did, there is at least some link between the two eruptions.  And Louis XVI was guilty by inattention, just as Emmanuel Macron the First, France's president, seems strangely indifferent to public sentiment.  To enact policies that raise gasoline prices — already the highest in Europe — on the eve of the year-end holidays and without offering a justification, was a major political error.  Macron's mistake was made worse by the justification given after the uprising:  the government explained to skeptical citizens that the new tax was actually an ecological measure, and therefore justified, since the goal was not to add to the state's coffers but to help fight climate change.  Obviously no one believes this excuse, including the government that issued it, or so we must hope.

The Carbon Tax Scam.  Anyone who questions the validity of Bruce Yandle's Bootlegger and Baptist theory of Public Choice needs to look no further than the Climate Leadership Council and its carbon dividend proposal which is now be flacked by Americans for Carbon Dividends — AFCD — which is co-chaired by former Senators John Breaux and Trent Lott.  The carbon dividend proposal, designed by James Baker and George Shultz, would impose a carbon tax — they call it a fee — on all fossil fuels and then rebate the revenue on an equally to all Americans on a monthly basis.  The program would be administered by the Social Security System.  The implementation of the carbon tax would lead to the phasing out of regulations that are intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  This proposal is supported by major corporations and distinguished Americans such as Ben Bernanke, Martin Feldstein, and of course, James Baker and George Shultz.  On the surface the proposal appears quite reasonable.  It is not.

Climate Change Alarmists Suffer Huge Blow In Deep Blue Washington State.  The initiative proposed a $15 tax on each ton of carbon emissions in the state starting in 2020, with the tax rate climbing each year.  It would have cost families in the state nearly $1,000 a year by 2035.  Keep in mind that the proposed carbon tax was a tiny baby step toward what environmentalists' claim will be needed to avoid a worldwide climate catastrophe.  The United Nations says we'd need a global carbon tax of up to $5,500 to achieve that.  Washington voters rejected even this minimalist step toward fighting what a large majority of them claim to believe is an existential threat to humanity.

5 States Could Wreck Their Economies In Futile Fight Against 'Climate Change'.  In Washington, voters will decide whether to be the first state to impose a carbon tax.  Initiative 1631 would slap a $15 tax on each ton of CO2 emissions starting in 2020.  That would climb by $2 every year after that.  This tax will hit everything, from gasoline prices (up by as much as 59 cents a gallon) to electricity bills to everyday household goods.  That translates into hundreds of dollars a year for a typical household right out of the gate, with costs climbing to nearly $1,000 a year by 2035.  An analysis by the National Economic Research Associates also found that the tax would cut the state's growth by 0.4% in the first two years.

There's No Such Thing as a 'Conservative' Carbon Tax.  The so-called "conservative" case for a carbon tax has always been a shell game.  Point out that such proposals might not meaningfully address climate change, and defenders claim that they'll boost economic growth.  Note that they won't boost growth and you're told that they will save the planet.  The confusion abounds: carbon tax proposals are sold as the key to reducing burdensome red tape, even though that tape can be (and has been) cut absent a sweeping new tax regime.  The tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral" thanks to offsetting tax cuts elsewhere — even as that same revenue gets promised to households in the form of a "dividend."

A carbon tax:  A useless solution to a nonexistent problem.  Mr. Fred Krupp is president of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).  He claims that "capitalism will solve the climate problem".  EDF pays him the princely sum of about $350,000 USD.  Evidently, his duties include spreading the idea that EDF, an aggressive environmental non-profit, is "pro-market."  Krupp asserts that the climate warmed in the final two decades of the 20th century, thus following the 1988 predictions of Dr. James Hansen, former head of NASA-GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), notorious for his violent opposition to emission of CO2.  But Krupp is quite wrong, and so are the predictions of Dr. Hansen.  There is no warming at all after about 1940, 'til the El Niño event of 1998 (which had nothing to do with CO2).  Therefore, there is no climate problem to be "solved."

The Dubious Basis for a Carbon Tax.  Rep Curbelo of Florida has introduced a carbon tax bill even though the House of Representatives have voted 229-180 to oppose any carbon tax legislation.  It is clear that no legislation is going to be passed and most likely that Rep Curbelo is simply using his proposalto bolster his campaign for re-election in November.  He has proposed a $24 per ton tax — the social cost of carbon — beginning in 2020 with the proceeds replacing the federal gasoline tax.  How did he pick $24 when the estimates often cited range from $15-$150 per ton?  It really doesn't make any difference since the choice is driven by the climate orthodoxy, model estimates and judgments and assumptions by climate advocates.  In reality, the social cost of carbon which is reflected in any proposed carbon tax is nothing more than an intellectual exercise that has very little basis in science or empirical facts.

States Consider Carbon Dioxide Taxes.  Several state legislatures, including those of Connecticut, Hawaii, and Utah, are considering establishing taxes on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use.  The purpose of the tax, typically referred to as a "carbon tax," is to decrease carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to mitigate climate change.  Connecticut's proposal would tax "any petroleum derivative that is commonly burned to produce heat, electricity or motion or that is commonly processed to produce synthetic gas for burning, including, but not limited to, propane, gasoline, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, heating oil, diesel fuel, kerosene-based jet fuel and number 4 oil, number 5 oil and residual oil for utility and nonutility uses," based on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions their use produces.  The tax would begin at $15 per ton in 2020 and increase by $5 per ton each subsequent year, indefinitely.

Carbon Tax:  A Bad Idea Whose Time Should Never Come.  The temptation of a carbon tax these days seems great, even to some Republicans.  But it's a bad idea.  Now two GOP lawmakers want to put people on the record opposing it, in the hopes of keeping it from becoming a reality.

The phrase "carbon tax" is a misnomer because carbon dioxide is not "carbon" and it is not a pollutant.  Since Mathur and Morris do not pretend that their per-ton carbon tax has anything to do with the purported marginal social cost of GHG emissions, it is not quite clear why they need a "carbon" tax at all.  Why not a tax on, say, okra, or fat-free ice cream, or argyle socks, or any of the other myriad monstrosities confronting modern mankind?  Actually, it is clear:  A carbon tax is where the big money (revenue) is.

America Is Finally Catching Up on Clean Coal.  That the Obama administration was out to severely curtail fossil fuel use is well known.  The former president's scorn for coal was abundantly obvious, and the Paris agreement was its embodiment.  Despite proclaiming the U.S. the "Saudi Arabia of coal," in May 2008, Obama soon back-flipped once in office and turned against the resource.  Within a year, Obama unleashed the war on coal when he proposed a nationwide cap-and-trade system targeting local plants, stifling coal companies with excessive regulation, and cutting billions in funding for clean coal projects across the country.

Trial of carbon tax 'fraud of the century' opens in Paris.  Between 2008 and 2009, 1.6 billion euros were swindled in a huge carbon quota market scam dubbed the "fraud of the century".  On Monday, 36 people suspected of running the scheme's largest operation went on trial in Paris.  At the head of the Marseille-based gang appearing before the judges this week is Christiane Melgrani, a former maths teacher who once managed a piano bar.  The outspoken 59-year-old, known as "La Marseillaise", had previously been sentenced for drug trafficking and sales tax fraud in telephone businesses.

Unsustainable model:  Carbon tax would make state less competitive for businesses.  An environmental advocacy group is proposing a carbon tax in New York to generate revenue to invest in renewable energy.  NY Renews is a coalition of organizations committed to reducing threats to the planet resulting from climate change.  Its members include Syracuse United Neighbors and CNY Solidarity Climate Justice.  Coalition members referenced a study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  It reports that New York must invest between $4 billion and $5.5 billion per year in clean energy initiatives to reach its goal of obtaining 50 percent of the state's power from renewable sources by 2030, as outlined in the Clean Energy Standard.  The study says this revenue could be derived from taxing climate pollution.  This would reportedly generate between 145,000 and 160,000 jobs annually in the clean energy sector in the first decade.

The Editor says...
[1] Taxes do not generate jobs.  [2] "Taxing climate pollution" means putting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Lindsey Graham's Idea To Bail Out The Highway Trust Fund Could Involve You Paying More For Energy.  South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters he supported taxing carbon dioxide emissions to keep the Highway Trust Fund from going under and to bail out ailing nuclear power plants.  "The Highway Trust Fund is falling apart," the Republican lawmaker told reporters at the National Clean Energy Week event in Washington, D.C.  "Somebody needs to do something about it."  Graham told reporters a carbon tax could boost highway funding as electric cars become more prevalent, according to Axios.  Electric vehicles and fuel efficient cars have depressed federal and state gas tax revenues.

Lindsey Graham endorses carbon tax at Yale climate forum.  Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham endorsed a carbon tax on Tuesday during a Yale University climate change conference hosted by former Secretary of State John Kerry.  "I'm a Republican.  I believe that the greenhouse effect is real, that CO2 emissions generated by man is creating our greenhouse gas effect that traps heat, and the planet is warming," said the South Carolina senator in a transcript of his pre-recorded message to the conference.  "A price on carbon — that's the way to go in my view."

The Editor says...
Someone who has attained the powerful position of U.S. Senator shouldn't have to be told that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, that natural sources of carbon dioxide far outweigh those produced by industrial activity, that water vapor is a far more important component of the greenhouse effect, and that no amount of legislation or taxation will affect the weather.  But alas, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham apparently has not been informed.

Rhode Island Considers Carbon Tax.  Rhode Island lawmakers are considering imposing a carbon tax that would increase energy costs and other prices of goods and services in the state.  The tax would start at $15 per ton, increasing by $5 per ton each year thereafter.  It would go into effect only if neighboring Connecticut and Massachusetts adopt coordinated, virtually identical carbon-dioxide tax laws as well.  The bill being considered in the Rhode Island Senate would tax carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, natural gas, gasoline, coal, propane and other petroleum products sold in the state, based on the amount of emissions each fuel produces.

Hillary 'fascinated' by Carbon Tax.  In her new book What Happened[,] Hillary Clinton reveals she was "fascinated" by the idea of a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax.  She wanted to take the money generated by both taxes, filter it through the Washington D.C. bureaucracy, and then send everyone a check as part of a Universal Basic Income scheme.  The whole process would be "a way of making every American feel more connected to our country and to one another — part of something bigger than ourselves."

New Carbon-Capture Plant Called The "Worst Investment In Human History".  Removing carbon from the atmosphere would certainly reduce food production to famine levels.  The same job can be done by planting trees., which consume CO2 the way nature intended it.

It's the theory of Global Warming that's really dangerous.  Even if one does not have a scientific background, one can reasonably question why someone like Al Gore who is not a scientist can become a billionaire selling carbon credits.  This snake oil venture allowed environmental activists to continue their wasteful abuse of resources by buying a carbon credit permitting them to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas.  The funds would then be paid to projects that absorb these gases like planting trees, etc.  This is, of course, an oversimplification but actually reading the details of this scam is mind boggling.

Developing nations in Paris accord threaten to keep polluting unless they're paid.  Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement.  North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check.  Otherwise, its emissions will rise even further.  Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with its "business as usual" projections, though that would be a net pollution increase of 22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding.

The Editor says...
Carbon dioxide is not carbon, nor is it a pollutant.  The holdouts have no leverage because they aren't doing any harm.

Surprise: The United States is the Leading Reducer of Carbon Emissions.  The Europeans are contemptuous of our decision not to join their One-World Government and submit our economic future to the incomparable IQs of the central planners in Brussels.  And yet, who is doing the most, right here, right now, to reduce carbon emissions and whatever effect they have on global warming?  The United States of America.

Without congressional 'advice and consent,' was US ever officially in Paris climate accord?  Perhaps it's only appropriate that there's a geographical common denominator between the U.S.'s first international agreement and the climate-related pact from which the U.S. most recently withdrew:  Paris.  The 1783 Treaty of Paris between Great Britain and the ascendant United States halted the Revolutionary War and set into motion the American experiment.  The first article of the treaty granted the U.S. the right to exist as a sovereign nation, liberated from the British.  The U.S.'s Congress of the Confederation (created between the first and second Continental congresses and prior to the inception of the modern U.S. Congress) ratified the treaty in 1784.  In other words, the concept of international treaties predates the republic.  The Founders incorporated the idea of treaties into the Constitution.  Article II, Section 2 grants the president power "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

U.S. Paid $1 Billion To Paris Agreement Green Fund — All Other Nations Combined $0.  The Paris Treaty was/is always about distribution of economic wealth; and the convenient use of "climate phrases" as branding instruments used to create political policy favorable to multinational corporate interests who control the shifting of economic wealth.  Listen to the responses from participating EU corporate comptrollers discussing climate and the entire purpose of the Paris Treaty becomes self-evident.

Watch As Rand Paul Totally Levels Through Every Global Warming Talking Point!  President Trump was absolutely doing the right thing when he pulled the US out of the monstrous Paris Climate Accord.  That agreement would have cost the US in excess of $3 trillion over the next few years.  It is a massive wealth redistribution scheme that benefited countries such as India, Iran and China.  Those last two are enemies of ours and China is the biggest polluter on the planet.  Paul is also correct in saying it would have cost us 6 million jobs.  It's a Ponzi scheme that would have destroyed us economically, period.

The Hard Truth About The Parasite Accord:  It's All About Money & Power.  To all those now whining about the United States pulling out of the Parasite/Paris Accord — that international non-binding agreement that was widely dismissed as a nothing-burger in 2015 but is now being heralded as the savior of the planet by unhinged anti-Trumpers, have you actually read it?  Because if you did, you would soon realize the Paris Accord does NOTHING substantive to limit CO2 on the planet.  NOTHING.

You're Fired, Paris Climate Accord.  [President] Trump is taking on all of this global warming poppycock that rests on the utterly ridiculous notion that carbon dioxide, the natural gas humans and other earthly life forms constantly produce and expel, the same gas that promotes plant growth, is a pollutant.  It is a truly insane idea that has no support in science but leftists are running with it because they hope to browbeat and intimidate Americans into accepting shrinking the economy by drastically reducing carbon emissions.

A path forward after the Paris climate agreement.  [Scroll down]  So, even if Hillary Clinton had beaten Mr. Trump and had kept the United States in the treaty, and even if every single national leader on the planet (and their successors) had unflinchingly stood by every single treaty promise for year after year, regardless of economic downturn or political crisis, the Paris Treaty would have left 99 percent of the problem in place.  Before Mr. Trump axed the treaty, many environmentalists quietly acknowledged this.  They praised the agreement regardless, because of the political value of world leaders focusing on climate change and because they believed that much larger carbon-cutting promises would come later.  That foolhardy assumption flew in the face of history.

Paris Can Wait — It Was A Bad Deal.  Supporters of the Paris climate deal present a false choice.  You either (a) believe in the scientific consensus about climate change (in which case, you support Paris), or (b) you are a denier.  But they are missing a third option, which is that (c) this is simply a bad deal in terms of the cost-benefit analysis.  Why is it a bad deal?  There are no consistent standards for participation.  Countries unilaterally decided what voluntary and non-binding commitment they wanted to pledge. [...] Here's where the deal really falls apart.  According to another study, the Paris deal would shave about 0.2 degrees off warming by 2100.  You heard me right.  Assuming everything works perfectly according to plan, we could plausibly be trading 6.5 million jobs for a 0.2-degree payoff.  But remember, there is no enforcement mechanism.

Claim: Four Trillion Dollar Per Annum Carbon Tax Required to Save the World.  Lord Stern, author of the Stern Review (2006), a government report which was used as the basis of UK climate policy, now says we need a four trillion dollar per annum carbon tax to save the world from CO2. [...] So much for claims that renewables are "free energy".

A fool's errand:  Al Gore's $15 trillion carbon tax.  Al Gore wants to reverse modernity and save the world from itself through an elimination of its fossil-fuel-based energy system.  During the final week of April, his newly created Energy Transitions Commission released a document setting forth a fool's-errand pathway to "decarbonize" the world's energy system.  If this sounds familiar, it is.  Gore's plan features a new, sophisticated, and expensive public-relations campaign, but it's all based on his views on carbon dioxide first broached in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, which he reissued in 2000 for his failed presidential campaign.  The subsequent efforts made by Gore during the past 25 years have transformed little from their genesis, and he remains as tragically wrong today as he was when he first surfaced as an opponent of everything linked to carbon-dioxide.

Sacramento public housing residents just got free Zipcars.  Residents at three public housing areas now have a mini-fleet of free Zipcars to make their way around Sacramento.  On Friday, Sacramento launched a pilot program that put eight shared electric Kia Souls at public housing sites.  Up to 300 residents can apply for on-demand access to the vehicles, with no charge for maintenance, insurance or juicing up the battery.  The program is funded through a $1.3 million grant from the California Air Resources Board using cap-and-trade funds that businesses pay to offset their carbon emissions.

Proposed US Carbon Tax — A Recipe for Disaster.  A group of Republican elder statesmen have recommended that the US adopt a $40/ton carbon tax as the "most efficient and effective way of reducing CO2 emissions".  This post reviews the potential economic impacts of such a tax on the US energy sector.  It concludes that the impacts on the oil and natural gas sectors would be comparatively minor but that the impacts on the coal sector would be severe.  Electric utilities with a high percentage of coal in their generation mix could well be driven into bankruptcy.

Carbon credit climate scam: the fraud prosecutions begin.  The London Evening Standard has a very interesting story today (20 September 2016) describing the first day of a professor's fraud trial at Southwark Crown Court, London, for operating an alleged £60 million climate-related tax dodge.  The story, headed World-famous conservationist "was part of £60 million eco-projects tax scam", says prosecutors allege that Professor Ian Swingland, a "renowned conservationist" who collected an Order of the British Empire from the Queen in 2007, together with four accomplices, had helped investors avoid tax on £170 million of income during a three-year "scam".

"Libertarian" Gary Johnson Pushes "Free Market" Carbon Tax.  Despite a historic opportunity for third parties to do well this presidential election, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson seems determined to blow it.  In the equivalent of shooting himself in the political foot, Johnson announced support for a deeply unpopular tax on emissions of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to stop alleged "climate change."  And he sought to deceive voters while doing it.  While the former New Mexico governor framed the tax scheme as a "fee" and a "free-market approach," even libertarians blasted the deception.  The "fee," as Johnson referred to his proposed tax in a perfect emulation of ObamaCare-style semantic deception, would massively expand government control over Americans and the economy.  At the same time, the scheme would further enrich crony capitalists such as Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, along with the other mega-banks and oil companies pushing for it.  The poor and middle class, though, along with freedom and free markets, would suffer a devastating blow from the plan.

Real Science vs Catastophism.  Catastrophism is the pretend science of the Prophet Gore and his fanatical followers.  It is far simpler.  Whatever the question, the answer is that diabolical gas, carbon dioxide.  It comes from burning fossil fuels, but not from breathing!  It has ruined our climate.  But wait, there is still time to save the planet, if we vote for Democrats, enact carbon taxes and ban troublesome scientists who stubbornly maintain that "it's not true."

"Climate Hustle" demolishes climate alarmism.  Without presenting it to the US Senate, as required by the Constitution, President Obama has signed the Paris climate treaty.  He is already using it to further obligate the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth[,] control our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties[,] and redistribute our wealth.  Poor, minority and working class families will suffer most.

Obama's Global Warming Plan is a 166% Tax for Poorest Families.  Carbon taxes are one of the biggest scams possible.  They're a massive wealth transfer and they take money out of the pockets of the working poor and shove into the greedy fat fists of Big Green and its legions of bankers, environmental consultants and parasite feeder fish.

Obama's Global Warming Plan Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raises Taxes By 166%.  [President] Obama wants to implement the Enviromental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which would effectively tax four-fifths of American carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and be similar in scope to an economy-wide carbon tax.  In addition, Obama has proposed a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax.  Neither plan would have a large impact on global warming.  Data modeling created by the EPA and run by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that the Clean Power Plan would only have adverted 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small it couldn't be detected.

Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama's Climate Change Treaty.  [#1] The economic impact of domestic regulations associated with the Paris agreement will be severe.  To meet America's commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the administration will need to drive the cost of conventional fuels higher so households and businesses use less.  Because energy is a necessary input for almost all goods consumers buy, households are hit by higher prices multiple times over.  Global warming regulations will increase electricity expenditures for a family of four by at least 13 percent a year.  Cumulatively, they will cost American families over $20,000 of lost income by 2035 and impose a $2.5 trillion hit on the economy.

Hillary's Hibachi Racket.  Hillary Clinton's "trustworthiness" problem is fed by a long history of "varying credibility," as a recent Politico story delineated, including cattle-futures trading, law firm billing records, muddled sniper fire recollections, and e-mail use.  While providing pertinent points, the Politico list is just a sampling.  One missing item on the "mistrust" litany is a project she reportedly cooked up as Secretary of State, but that was shaped by her family foundation. [...] No one would begrudge corporations giving to a philanthropic effort, but we would probably feel differently about our own tax dollars going to the project Clinton is hawking — especially when the project is, by most accounts, an epic failure. [...] If Clinton becomes president, her energy policies will likely enact a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax — which would suddenly make her cookstove project profitable.

Washington considers nation's first carbon emissions tax.  Washington could become the first state in the nation to impose a direct tax on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal, gasoline and natural gas.

"Greens" vs. Transparency.  Oregon officials are very much aware of the potential for abuse in such programs.  An earlier program, the Business Energy Tax Credit, was so bad, so disastrous it was actually repealed.  It allowed businesses to set up "green" projects and take huge tax breaks — 50 percent, up to $10 million, in the final, 2007 version of the credit.  Worse, in the manner of cap-and-trade systems, companies could sell their credits, creating even more potential for corruption.  For example, one paper mill earned energy credits by burning wood and using the heat to dry the paper.  The company sold credits to Walmart for $2.3 million, which Walmart could then use to offset $3.3 million in state taxes over five years — which, it turned out, Walmart was able to use even though the plant itself had shut down.  A Texas trucking company received 752 credits worth $4.5 million, even though less than one percent of its runs were on Oregon roads.  A tire recycling plant received $3.4 million even though, after more than two years, it had yet to recycle tires.  A New York company divided its wind farm into thirds, to qualify for three separate $10 million credits, despite a state analysis that should have disqualified the scheme.  And backers of a $23.6 million project to install solar arrays at two colleges allegedly used forged documents to qualify for a $11.8 million credit — one document, an invoice from a nonexistent contractor, and the other document, a letter supposedly signed by the president of a "renewables" company that was dated five days after he had resigned.

Tax Cuts to Cut Carbon, an Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come.  In theory, tax cuts on so-called "clean" technologies should dramatically increase investments in these industries, because investors would not have to pay taxes on the profits.  Because taxes would still be paid by companies using fossil fuels to produce electricity or churn out popular products not as energy-efficient as alternative models in their class, stock prices would fall and investment in them would wane.  Proponents have described it as "an all carrot, no-stick" approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Conservatives, Climate Change, and the Carbon Tax.  Global warming has for a long time been a partisan issue rather than a purely scientific one — and in important respects, conservatives have painted themselves into a corner.  Based on the reasonable expectation that admitting a problem would lead to a huge government power-grab, those conservatives with access to the biggest megaphones have long used scientific uncertainty to avoid the issue.  That game is up, and they suddenly find themselves walking unprepared into the middle of a sophisticated scientific and economic conversation about how to deal with the problem.  While a few conservative think tanks have considered these issues seriously for some time, the public discussion has until recently been conducted largely among various liberal factions and has turned into a technical debate about differing schemes for taxing emissions of carbon dioxide.

Where is the due diligence on 600 billion dollars invested in "decarbonisation"?  It seems the UN is co-founding groups for money managers to get large funds to "decarbonize".  That's code for chiseling investments out of coal and forcing them into the pointless, inefficient and uncompetitive "renewables".  But of course, renewables are only worth investing in if governments keep demanding people use them.  If the [...] voters vote muck it up, by voting for leaders who will stop wasting their money, the renewables industry is a dead dog.  So the UN project (which is probably funded by taxpayers) aims to remove the risk for investors by lobbying governments to keep the regulations friendly to green investors (and not so much to taxpayers).

UK scraps one billion pound carbon capture technology scheme.  Britain has scrapped plans to spend up to 1 billion pounds ($1.5 billion) to help commercialize the technology for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and storing them underground, the government said on Wednesday, putting two major projects at risk of being canceled.

Paris Climate Deal Calls for America to Transfer Wealth to 'Developing' Countries.  The draft of the international agreement to deal with climate change, which is being considered today in Paris by representatives from 195 countries, calls for the developed nations of the world (which include the United States) to transfer wealth to developing nations, including through "public funds."  "Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention," says Article 9 of the draft agreement.

Ginning up war on prosperity, liberty.  Yes, nothing says concern for the planet quite like the world's potentates jetting to Paris at Christmastime with the notion of carving up the riches of developed nations whose successes are based in the rule of law and individual property rights.  As India environment minister Prakash Javadekar remarked, scoffing at the U.S. pledge of a $100 billion annual fund to salve the shift to green energy among emerging economies, "The cost of action ... is trillions; $100 billion is just a reparation."  So, yeah, science.  What I do know is the last time anyone in the majoritarian side recommended prosecuting anyone with a contrary opinion — as climate scientists and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse have urged — Galileo was fiddling with his telescope.

Money and Power Drive Obama's Climate Agenda.  Obama's green energy plan put the coal industry on life-support, targeted oil and gas as the enemy and sought to impose restrictions on power plants that generate electricity to homes and businesses.  What the president reportedly hides behind the curtain is his alliances with international green elites, a select group of political and Wall Street cronies, and energy regulatory czars who have orchestrated a CO2 carbon-taxing scheme that would put billions of dollars into their own pockets. [...] The media neglect the real reason Barack Obama wants your hard-earned dollars to flow into a global green machine.  Barack Obama continues to push, at the expense of America and beyond all logic and recent scientific data, for a long-term and massive financial commitment to global warming.<>/p>

The Real Climate Crisis that the Global Warming Scammers are Ignoring.  The real reason to impose carbon taxes and similar nonsense is to disadvantage the west and our modern society for the purpose of control while giving huge sums of money to favored people to redistribute under the guise of "leadership."  What it really amounts to is theft at gunpoint used for "global welfare payments."  Nothing more or less.

COP 21 climate deal hinges on cash payouts to developing countries.  Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa was explicit earlier this year when asked what it would take for developing countries to sign up for the emerging U.S.-led climate deal:  "Money."  His candor was recounted in an April email between two of the Obama administration's top global warming officials, who called the succinct wisdom from Mr. Kutesa — at the time the president of the U.N. General Assembly — the "best answer of [the] night."

China Cap-and-Trade.  The Obama Administration is leveraging China's commitment with his own Clean Power Plan to try to get other countries to sign on to a global accord in Paris this December.  But these are paper promises by sovereigns who surely know that there is no guarantee that the next Administration — or Congress — will have any appetite for continuing the futile crusade to 'save' the climate.  What is happening now is "good PR for China, but a bad deal for the US."

Climate Change's Great Legacy: International Wealth Redistribution.  India says it needs $2.5 trillion to meet its energy-and-climate policy goals.  Okay, some of that will come from within India itself, but a big portion, it's clear, will have to come from the US and other rich countries — or it won't happen.  The Philippines says that without major cash influx from rich countries, it won't be able to make any CO2 emission cuts.  This is all good news for those of us who know that increased atmospheric CO2 won't warm things much but will improve plant growth, and hence crop yields, and hence food supplies, around the world.

EPA Targets Methane Emissions, Provokes Ire From Congressional Republicans.  The Obama administration made major waves on Tuesday [8/18/2015] when it proposed the first ever federal regulations that would require the nation's oil and gas industry to cut emissions of methane.  Congressional Republicans contend it's further proof of the administration's collusion with environmental lobbyists to advance its climate-change agenda despite the lack of science to support it and regardless of the significant economic impact it is expected to have.  The proposal aims to cut methane by 40 to 45 percent by 2025 and would require drillers to stop leaks and capture lost gas in wells intended to extract only oil, as part of a larger push by the Obama administration to cut emissions.  Earlier this month, Obama unveiled the Clean Power Plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent by 2030 and increase the proportion of the nation's electricity generated by renewable sources to 28 percent.  According to The Hill, that regulation is "one of the most expensive EPA regulations ever," as states will have no choice but to implement a carbon tax, cap-and-trade, or dramatic energy efficiency mandates in order to achieve this target.

Tesla gets $295M in cap & trade credits for technology not offered to customers.  Tesla Motors has earned more than $295 million in state cap and trade emission credits during the past three years for a battery-swapping technology customers weren't getting, a Watchdog investigation reveals.  In fact, the electric car company, owned in part by billionaire Elon Musk, may have earned credits up to nearly half a billion dollars in value from the 11 states that use the Zero Emission Vehicle barter as part of a green auto industry mandate.  California created the program and leads the pack, doling out $173 million in credits to the Silicon Valley-based Tesla.

The Chicago Treason Network.  [Scroll down]  The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a carbon credit exchange that purports to help the environment by helping to cap carbon emissions and providing a platform on which they can be traded.  In reality, the CCX monetizes capped "carbon emissions" and gives financial value to the carbon credits.  If you've ever wondered why it is that the myth of global warming/climate change persists despite an avalanche of empirical evidence against it, it is for one reason alone: personal enrichment of a clique of no-growth frauds and liars.  Once carbon emission caps are passed into law in the United States or through a treaty via the United Nations, the value of carbon credits will increase exponentially.  The scale of this operation could potentially rival the total existing financial derivatives market and be valued in the trillions of dollars.

The Mask Slips on the Climate Scam.  We're always told that revenue from emissions trading or a carbon tax will be used for energy and climate change adaptation purposes.  But Inslee has let the mask slip and made obvious that it is a lie.  Liberal politicians especially are drooling for a carbon tax as a new revenue source.  It isn't going to be rebated to taxpayers.  It isn't going to be used as a bargaining chip for a decent tax reform.  It's going to be used to pay for more government goodies.

Study: Cap-and-trade kills jobs.  Cap-and-trade programs kill manufacturing jobs, according to new research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.  The study says that manufacturing jobs were reduced by 1.3 percent in affected areas after the EPA implemented a cap-and-trade program in 20 eastern states in the 2000s.  Cap-and-trade cost over 110,000 jobs total in the affected states.

Global Warming, Global Schooling and Governor CO2.  The Cap and Trade program Governor CO2 wants is not a program to actually do anything to change the world's climate.  "Little state of Washington fixes world climate" is not really going to be a future headline and even Governor CO2 knows this (I think.)  Instead, however, his plan is to tax bad guys and reward better guys.  And he knows where the better ones are.

California's Cap-and-Trade Scam to Spike Gas Prices as Much as $.70 a Gallon.  Thanks to their religion of global warming, Democrat politicians will cause gas prices in California to rise as much as $0.70 a gallon next year.

Taxing Carbon in the Name of Climate Change.  Not counting the non-enforced southern border and the hordes of new and lawless Democrat citizens who demand their fair share of the American dream now turned into a welfare nightmare, the national debt is most likely to sink the economy sooner than any other variable and that includes climate change that has been changing for millennia.  [Former Treasury Secretary Robert E.] Rubin asserts that, since the "scientific community is all but unanimous in its agreement that climate change is a serious threat," we have to include climate change risks in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions, even though we cannot define climate change risks with precision.

Australia kills off carbon tax.  Australia's carbon price has been repealed, leaving the nation with no legislated policy to achieve even the minimum 5% greenhouse emissions reduction target it has inscribed in international agreements.  After eight years of bitter political debate, during which climate policy dominated three election campaigns and contributed to the demise of two prime ministers, after last week's Senate drama in which the repeal was again defeated and this week's lengthy last gasp debate, the Senate has now finally voted to make good Tony Abbott's "pledge in blood" to "axe the tax".

Australia repeals controversial carbon tax. Will others follow?  Australia has become the first nation in the developed world to wind back legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, after the Senate voted to scrap the controversial carbon tax on Thursday [7/17/2014].  The vote has delivered a major victory to the conservative government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who went into last year's election promising to abolish the "toxic tax" which he said threatened the nation's economy, the world's 12th largest.  After days of tense negotiations the repeal bill passed the Senate 39 to 32.

States Fighting Obama EPA's Global Warming Decrees.  The "climate" regulatory regime unveiled by the EPA last month calls for massive reductions in emissions from power plants.  Under the scheme, described as "ObamaCare for the atmosphere," emissions of what scientists refer to as the "gas of life" — exhaled by humans and required for plants — must be slashed by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.  Obama explained the economic effects of his plot in a 2008 interview:  "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."  At least in that instance, he was telling the truth.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that the scheme could cost $50 billion per year in lost GDP and over 200,000 jobs annually, in addition to a plunge in household disposable income of over half a trillion dollars a year.

Why did Al Gore help Clive Palmer announce the end of the carbon tax?  Gore has either been duped into thinking Palmer is an environmentalist or he has been handsomely paid for his bizarre appearance.  Or both...  Does Gore know that Palmer claims to have a deal to export $60 billion worth of coal to China over the next 20 years from his big holding in Queensland's Galilee Basin?  Does Gore know Palmer's Waratah Coal was given approval late last year to build a thermal coal project near Alpha in central-west Queensland?

Capturing Carbon Drives up Energy Costs.  Yes, China's communist government is "pouring serious money into carbon capture projects."  But this is supposed to be a role model for the American economy?  The Obama administration should be following communist China's lead and massively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry by "pouring serious money" from taxpayers into developing carbon capture technology?  This doesn't sound like a rational free market approach.

Australian PM introduces bill to repeal carbon tax.  Prime Minister Tony Abbott reintroduced legislation to the Australian Parliament on Monday [6/23/2014] that would repeal a carbon tax that the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters have to pay.

Tony Abbott seeks alliance to thwart President Obama on climate change policy.  Tony Abbott is seeking a conservative alliance among "like-minded" countries, aiming to dismantle global moves to introduce carbon pricing, and undermine a push by US President Barack Obama to push the case for action through forums such as the G20. [...] The combined front would attempt to counter recent moves by the Obama administration to lift the pace of climate change abatement via policies such as a carbon tax or state-based emissions trading.  It is a calculated attempt to push back against what both leaders see as a left-liberal agenda in favour of higher taxes, unwise interventions to address global warming, and an unhealthy attitude of state intervention.

EPA To Unilaterally Push Cap And Trade On Carbon Emissions.  Despite being soundly rejected a few years ago, cap-and-trade will soon get its U.S. encore — but not in Congress.  The Obama administration will likely use its executive power to unilaterally impose carbon dioxide emissions trading systems.  The Environmental Protection Agency will unveil regulations for existing U.S. power plants early next month.  For months, onlookers have been speculating about what could be included in the EPA's rule for existing power plants.  But over the past few days it has become clear that the Obama administration will use the EPA to push cap-and-trade systems and other anti-fossil fuel policies on U.S. states.  Administration insiders have told news outlets that cap-and-trade will likely be one of the options the EPA gives states to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

White House to propose rule giving states free rein to meet emission reduction goals.  The Obama administration will next week unveil a cornerstone of its climate-change initiative with a proposed rule aimed at allowing states to use cap-and-trade systems, renewable energy and other measures to meet aggressive goals for reducing carbon emissions by existing power plants.  Energy companies and others affected by the proposal will be watching for key details, including the percentage by which companies and states must reduce carbon emissions, which is expected to be proposed in a range instead of a single number.

The Editor says...
The states have "free rein" to comply and submit to Obama's industry-killing regulations any way they like.  That's tyranny.

Washington Governor Imposes Cap-and-Trade Through Executive Order.  Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee is not waiting for the state legislature to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but instead has issued an executive order to implement a cap-and-trade program, eliminate coal power and fund green energy projects. [...] Inlsee argues that more action is needed if the state is to meet climate goals passed by the legislature in 2008.  Those goals call for the state to lower its carbon dioxide emissions by certain amounts by 2020.

California eyes plan to speed bullet train using cap-and-trade program proceeds.  As envisioned, California's $68 billion bullet-train system, the nation's first, would take passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco at speeds of more than 200 miles an hour.  The project, though, has been beset by planning delays, fluctuating cost estimates and court challenges that have threatened to kill or delay it indefinitely.  Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed using one-third of funds raised annually through cap-and-trade auctions to help pay for high-speed rail.

Gas Prices May Jump From California Emissions Law.  California's greenhouse gas reduction law already has shaken up the state's industrial sector, costing it more than $1.5 billion in pollution permit fees.

The Efficiency of a Carbon Tax: Broadly Accepted and Broadly Wrong.  The standard assumption about the superior efficiency of a carbon tax relative to bans and energy consumption standards is deeply problematic for both scientific and political reasons.

Podesta's Climate And Environmental Agendas Will Add To Obama's Executive Disorders.  President Obama's promise to be the most transparent administration in history is proving to be true with regard to the recent appointment of John Podesta as his high profile congressional circumvention strategist.  Podesta's belief in government by fiat is clear. [...] Never mind that having witnessed the past 17 years of flat global temperatures despite ballyhooed record atmospheric CO2 levels, John Podesta is hell-bent to reheat regulatory assaults on carbon emissions.

The Climate Change Climate Keeps Changing, but the Carbon Tax Is Eternal.  Confronted with more data that contradict climate change orthodoxy, climate change alarmists still advocate a carbon tax, but with new rationales.

A Carbon Tax on Everything.  Many taxes start out as modest only to be goosed up over time.  The implications of initiating a carbon tax are broader and deeper than [Robert J.] Samuelson cares to address, and could pose quite a burden on the nation's already overregulated and multi-taxed economy.  And what watermelon truck did Samuelson fall off of when he wrote that a carbon tax could reduce budget deficits?

When your own police label you a terrorist.  I moved from Maryland to New Hampshire in 2010.  Why?  I walked into my corner grocery store in Maryland and all the lights were off.  Reason:  the small-business owner couldn't afford the new countywide carbon tax.  That was the last straw for me.

House slams door on carbon tax.  The House approved an amendment to legislation Friday that would prevent the White House from imposing a carbon tax without congressional approval.  The lower chamber agreed to Rep. Steve Scalise's (R-La.) amendment by a 237-176 vote, with 12 Democrats crossing the aisle to support it.

Obama's Climate Five-Year Plan.  Way back in January 2008, when he was just a senator running for the presidency, Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that he "was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter."  That way, he explained, "if somebody wants to build a [conventional] coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."  Five years later, Obama is doing what he said he'd do.

The zero-emission vehicle myth.  Auto enthusiasts were thrilled last week as green automaker Tesla made it into the black, earning $11 million profit on revenue of $562 million in the first quarter of 2013.  "I'd be lying if I said it wasn't somewhat surprising to see they've been able to turn a profit so quickly," Alec Gutierrez, an industry analyst, told Bloomberg News.  A closer inspection of the numbers, however, reveals that the Palo Alto-based carmaker made its profit by selling $68 million in carbon credits to other automakers.

Obama Quietly Raises 'Carbon Price' as Costs to Climate Increase.  Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government's accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.  The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations.  The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.

The Editor says...
Warmer weather would produce longer growing seasons, not "diminished crops."

An obscure new rule on microwaves can tell us a lot about Obama's climate policies.  Last week, the Department of Energy announced a little-noticed update to its energy-efficiency standards for microwaves, requiring newer models to use less power in stand-by mode.  But there was a surprise buried in the fine print:  The agency is now using a higher figure for the "social cost of carbon" in calculating the benefits of the rule.

The Editor says...
Outside your house, there is a big power transformer that consumes power 24 hours a day (if you're lucky), and dissipates more power than all the idle appliances you own.  And the power company knows about it, and can't do anything to fix it, and nobody cares.  And that problem doesn't cause global warming, either.  Once again, global warming stopped, all by itself, in 1998.

Obama officials raise 'social cost' of carbon in federal regulations.  The Obama administration has increased the "social cost" of carbon emissions in federal regulations, a move that could lay the groundwork for new rules on climate change.  The order, handed down by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with little fanfare, bumps the so-called social cost of carbon — a monetized estimate of health, property and environmental damage — to $35 per metric ton, up from $21.  The directive requires all federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to use the new figure when crafting regulations.

Green energy on the back foot after carbon trading blow.  A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) says that progress towards carbon-free energy production has basically stalled.

Carbon Tax: Are Republicans Really That Stupid?  As much as I admire former Secretary of State George Shultz, and because I do, I was totally flummoxed by a recent Wall Street Journal article he co-authored with economist Nobel laureate Gary Becker.  Incredulously, the two senior fellows at Stanford University's conservative Hoover Institution expressed support for a "revenue neutral" tax on carbon.

The missing costs of carbon policies.  Carbon trading and clean energy policies fail because costs exceed benefits.

A Carbon Tax Would Destroy America.  If you want to know what a carbon tax on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to America you need only look at the destruction of industry and business in Australia, along with the soaring costs for energy use it imposes on anyone there.  "The carbon tax is contributing to a record number of firms going to the wall with thousands of employees being laid off and companies forced to close factories that have stood for generations", Steve Lewis and Phil Jacob reported in a March 18 issue of The Daily Telegraph, a leading Australian newspaper.

Senators: 'Far-left' group pushes EPA to implement cap-and-trade without congressional approval.  Republican senators urged the Environmental Protection Agency not to participate in a "sue-and-settle" arrangement with a law school policy institute that is trying to require the agency to develop rules implementing cap-and-trade, even though Congress refused to pass the law.  The New York Institute for Policy Integrity told the EPA in November that it plans to file a lawsuit over the agency's failure to respond to IPI's request that it create a rule implementing a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

Al Gore says now is the time for a carbon tax.  Former Vice President Al Gore published a blog post on his website entitled "'The time has come' for a carbon tax," which includes excerpts from an editorial from the Financial Times which endorses a carbon tax.

Obama's misguided carbon tax plans.  President Obama and many other politicians continue to insist that carbon dioxide emissions are changing Earth's climate and that we need to take immediate action to prevent catastrophes predicted by computer models, Al Gore and fellow alarmists.  Above all, they want to tax carbon dioxide emissions to force people to use less hydrocarbon energy and "save vital federal programs" from wanton budgetary axes.  Their dreams of $100 billion windfalls from regressive taxes on job creation and economic growth are dangerous hallucinations.  They would bring intense pain with no climate or economic gain.

The Greatest Threat to Peace.  [Scroll down]  So now we have the global-warming hysterics insisting that U.S. national security and world peace depend upon restricting carbon use.  Nothing could be more false.  What the world needs most for its stability, and what the U.S. needs for its national security, is economic growth, which is driven first and foremost by expanded carbon use.  Nothing could be more regressive than carbon taxes.  Nothing could do more to help the world's poor than to make fossil fuels cheap and plentiful.  Nothing could do more harm to America's national security than a carbon-restricted depressed economy that would make funding our military impossible.  Nothing could do more to ensure the wherewithal for our national security than a cheap, carbon-enabled economic boom.

Bicycles to Be Taxed for Causing Global Warming.  The triumph of moonbattery means that there is no longer any limit whatsoever to government greed or tyrannical absurdity.

Obama trading Keystone XL for a carbon tax?  There are apparently some bad ideas which never die, no matter how many stakes you drive through them.  One of these is the carbon tax, not so subtly invoked during the State of the Union address, and now making a comeback with some of the usual list of suspects in Congress.  But this time it may be coming with a twist.

Obama Admits: 'Energy Is Going to Be a Little More Expensive'.  This is not the first time Obama has admitted to supporting price-raising energy policies.  In 2008, then-candidate Obama said he was fine with soaring energy prices so long as they helped curb green house gas emissions.  "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," he said.  Obama supporters in 2008 also applauded the prospect of rising gas prices because they would "force us to think about changing the culture to create more emphasis on mass transportation."  Following the sustained applause, Obama praised Europe for its rail system.

Boxer Introduces Carbon Tax Bill Three Months After WH Promised 'We Would Never Propose' One.  Today, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced a bill to levy a carbon tax. But, back on Nov. 15 of last year, Pres. Obama's press secretary promised the administration would "never" do so.  According to Reuters, the new tax law "would set a $20 tax for each ton of carbon dioxide equivalent a polluter would emit beyond a set limit, which would rise 5.6 percent annually over a 10-year period."  Last November, however, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that would never happen.

Obama Unveils His Economy-Killing Cap-And-Tax Plan.  A nonexistent crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and in justifying his proposal for a cap-and-tax scheme, President Obama claimed in his State Of The Union that "the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15."  He was lying.  The fact is, according to new data released quietly last October by Britain's Met Office, the world's natural post-Ice Age warming trend stopped about 16 years ago.  From the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

Why his Cap and Trade threat to Congress is Obama's — and America's — Rubicon.  First came the warning:  Congress must pass a cap-and-trade bill to combat global warming because, Obama said, "the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.  Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense."  (Set aside that, as the Climate Depot's Marc Morano documents, the facts make it abundantly clear that the president is quite wrong on each point in that sentence.)  Then came the threat:  "And if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will.  I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take."

In Ireland, Carbon Taxes Demonstrate Global Left's Radical Environmentalism in Action.  Taxes are added by as much as 36 percent of a car's market price at the point of sale, factored into the sticker price.  And additional taxes are billed directly to drivers, often adding thousands of dollars to annual vehicle operating costs.  And because people at lower incomes are less able to afford newer cars with all the latest "green" technologies, the tax system is heavily regressive.

For his next crisis.  Saving the planet isn't easy — or cheap — especially in California.  The state's anti-global-warming cap-and-trade program is the latest gimmick to leave it with yet another big hole to fill in its budget.  The Golden State's new carbon-trading program is the world's second largest, after the European Union's.  The stated goal is to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and another 80 percent by 2050.  But California held its very first "carbon credit" auction last month — and it was a big disappointment.

Obama Plans for Climate Deal as Fiscal Cliff Talks Rage.  As leaders in Washington obsess about the fiscal cliff, President Barack Obama is putting in place the building blocks for a climate treaty requiring the first fossil-fuel emissions cuts from both the U.S. and China.  State Department envoy Todd Stern is in Doha this week working to clear the path for an international agreement by 2015.  While Obama failed to deliver on his promise to start a cap-and-trade program in his first term, he's working on policies that may help cut greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 in the U.S., historically the world's biggest polluter.

Bias alert:
Whether carbon dioxide is called a pollutant or not (and it is not), the United States is not "the world's biggest polluter."  That would be India, China, Bangladesh, Mexico or the Philippines.  Or maybe one of those African countries where people burn firewood and dung to stay warm and cook dinner.  Or some country with a lot of active volcanoes.  There is no place in America like Baguio City, Bombay or Mexico City.  Not one of The 10 Cities With the World's Worst Air is in the United States.  World-wide, the poorest countries are the worst polluters.

Carbon Tax Will Kill The Economy, Boost Inflation.  Climate alarmists hope that Hurricane Sandy and President Obama's re-election will coerce panicky congressional Republicans into a "carbon tax" deal in 2013.  But simple math shows the tax would have no effect other than an inflationary one.

Pulling billions out of thin air.  As home to the entertainment industry and the land of make-believe, California is known for embracing fads.  The latest rage among the Democrats who just won a supermajority sway in the Sacramento Statehouse may prove to be the most costly.  California is starting its own cap-and-trade program, which taxes carbon-dioxide emissions and other "greenhouse" gases through a convoluted permit system.  The Golden State could end up suffocating its golden goose with this scheme.

Obama's Next Move: the Global Warming Tax.  This week the United Nations begins two weeks of climate talks in Doha, Qatar.  The primary goal of these meetings is to draw President Obama into accepting a redistribution plan designed extract money from the U.S. economy in the form of a global warming tax and doling out the cash to Third World nations.

Carbon Tax Could Come After Fiscal Cliff Deal.  According to one former member of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton, President Obama may have plans to implement a carbon tax as soon as the fiscal cliff negotiations are settled.  Forget the fact that Obama and his minions have repeatedly protested that they won't press for a carbon tax [...]

U.S. Carbon Tax to Shovel Dollars to U.N. Bureaucrats?  It appears there will be an international dining section for hogs at the carbon-tax trough.  Any new tax that promises hundreds of billions of dollars per year, as a carbon tax does, would bring out the special-interest hogs, and one of the interests likely to be fed by any federal carbon tax is the U.N.'s Green Climate Fund.

Obama Administration Gets Sued Over Carbon Tax E-mails.  President Obama's Treasury Department is facing a lawsuit for stonewalling a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request relating to a planned carbon tax on fossil fuels.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a watchdog group focused on energy and environmental regulations, filed suit Tuesday ]11/13/2012] in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., announcing in a press release that it expects Obama's congressional cronies to propose the tax in the upcoming lame-duck session.

Did the U.S. Constitution Promise a Chicken in Every Pot? [Scroll down]  Cap and trade is a tax on commerce.  Obama and the commies want to hinder U.S. Commerce in the name of carbon emissions.  Aren't these the same idiots that said the hole in the ozone was going to melt our children!  Bottom line is they want to tax you and American Businesses that have not been sent to China yet, so we can send this money to under-developed countries.

The Right Time for a Carbon Tax Is Never.  The hope among carbon-tax proponents is that they can sugar-coat the tax and make it palatable to conservatives, or at least to enough conservatives.  This proposed confection has two ingredients.  First, the carbon tax is to be a revenue-neutral swap for some even more harmful tax.  Second, a carbon tax would obviate the need for regulation of carbon dioxide and for subsidies to low-carbon energy.

The Coming Environmental Battles.  With China, India and other developing countries massively increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, EPA's actions would do nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.  In fact, by 2013, China will emit twice as much carbon dioxide as the United States.  The EPA regs would, however, put government in charge of our entire economy, sharply increase energy prices for every business and household, kill millions of jobs, ensure that net tax revenues never materialize, and hurt poor families most.

Grover Norquist Abruptly Reverses Pro-Carbon Tax Position.  On Tuesday, Grover Norquist walked back his comments about a possible carbon tax swap (which would reduce income taxes while taxing carbon emissions), one day after the staunch anti-tax advocate suggested it would not violate his famed Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  Norquist now says there "is no conceivable way to add an energy or VAT tax to the burdens American taxpayers face that would not violate the pledge over time."  He added, "it would be [a] foolish and economically destructive thing to do."

White House says Obama is not planning a carbon tax proposal.  President Obama has no plans to propose a tax on carbon emissions, a White House official said.  "The Administration has not proposed nor is planning to propose a carbon tax," the official said.  Imposing a tax on fossil energy sources to curb greenhouse gas emissions faces huge political hurdles.  But the idea has nonetheless received increased attention of late, especially as policymakers seek ways to address the deficit.

The Editor says...
This could mean that somebody else is planning a carbon (dioxide) tax, or it could mean that Obama has finished planning a CO2 tax proposal, but (given Obama's history) I doubt if it means there will be no CO2 tax proposal in the next few years.

Eco-Taxes? Study Financed by U.S. Treasury Will Link Tax Code to Carbon Emissions.  A major tax study currently being sponsored by the U.S. Treasury will give environmental activists a powerful new weapon in their campaign to alter the entire American economic and social landscape in the name of halting "climate change" — including the possible levying of new carbon taxes.

Obama Is Right.  He sold himself to America as a constitutional scholar.  Yet when the minutiae of governing — proposing and crafting legislation and lobbying for its passage — got too difficult, he hit the links and ruled by executive order.  He couldn't get Congress — even when he had super majorities in both houses — to agree to bankrupt the nation's economy with his idiotic cap and trade legislation.  Instead, he has had the EPA create regulations to implement the most disastrous parts anyway.

Stop Obama's War on Coal.  The American people rejected cap-and-trade (President Obama's plan to make electricity prices "necessarily skyrocket" and "bankrupt coal") in one of the biggest landslide elections in history in 2010.  The day after that election, Obama said:  "Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way.  It was a means, not an end."  Since then, Obama has worked overtime to act as if the cap-and-trade bill passed and to twist decades-old laws in order to bankrupt coal and drive up the price of electricity.  Obama's staggering array of anti-coal regulations will effectively shut down all coal-fired power plants in America, a genuine economic catastrophe that will make prices "necessarily skyrocket" and undermine the reliability of our electric grid.

Would a Carbon Dioxide Tax Be Efficient?  Leaving aside the continuing questions of the underlying climate science, if we assume that carbon dioxide drives harmful climate change, is it reasonable to predict that the adoption of a carbon tax would yield economic improvement relative to current policies?  Consider the direct policy goal of the environmental Left:  An 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
  •   If such a reduction were to be achieved by the United States alone through any mix of policy tools, the effect on global temperatures 100 years hence would be effectively zero, an outcome about which there is no dispute.
  •   Moreover, increasing emissions from other nations, particularly still-developing countries such as China and India, will yield growing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
  •   Unilateral U.S. policies would be futile regardless of the assumption made about the underlying climate science.

The Green War on the Poor.  According to Professor [Robert H.] Frank, stopping global warming may require carbon taxes of about $300 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, and by implementing such taxes, we can also balance the federal budget.  "If such a tax were phased in," Frank says, "the prices of goods would rise gradually in proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide their production or use entailed.  The price of gasoline, for example, would slowly rise by somewhat less than $3 per gallon.

The Editor says...
At the risk of repeating myself, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, global warming stopped all by itself in 1998, and gasoline prices are high enough already.

Big banks weigh risks, rewards of California's new CO2 market.  Major banks are weighing whether to wade into the California carbon market, which experts believe could grow into a $40 billion a year market by 2020, but one that is also loaded with risk and uncertainty.

Obama, EPA actions make cap-and-trade more likely.  President Obama's use of executive authority and his Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of existing laws might have laid the groundwork for renewed cap-and-trade efforts, political experts said Wednesday.  The courts have approved many of the EPA's pollution regulations, giving Obama license to propose new rules, former EPA Administrator Carol Browner said during a Politico-hosted panel discussion at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.  She explained those court victories have created momentum that might make industry-specific cap-and-trade plans more palatable than the prospect of facing new regulations.

Regardless of 'swap,' carbon tax too expensive.  Carbon taxes have regained traction this year as several Democrats and even a few Republicans have voiced support for implementing a tax on all energy producers for the amount of carbon dioxide they emit, and then "refunding" the revenue to taxpayers in the form of a cut to the personal income tax, which some economists say distorts the economy more, dollar-per-dollar, than a carbon tax would.

California Prepares to Auction Carbon Credits.  The central component of California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) is taking effect this year, and with the state facing a $15.7 billion deficit, political leaders have ended a long debate over how to spend revenue the act is expected to generate.  The central component of the measure is "cap and trade," a complex system that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated in the state by capping the amount of the emissions businesses may produce.

CO2 Reductions are Good for Nothing.  The Green Church and has long advised the importance of economic sacrifice to heal the planet, yet — despite seven years of declining U.S. carbon dioxide emissions — its media disciples are still complaining this summer of hot temperatures.  "Experts say it's difficult to prove a causal relationship between climate change and last week's wild weather in Michigan, but record temperatures and violent storms appear to fit the widely-accepted scientific model," worried MLive's liberal Jonathan Oosting this July.  Clearly the draconian six percent decrease in U.S. CO2 emissions since 2005 has been good for nothing.  Despite the most wrenching economic downturn since the Great Depression — costing millions of jobs and destroying thousands of businesses — emissions reductions have had zero effect on the climate.

Cap and Trade Doesn't Work.  A bill setting greenhouse gas reduction targets is currently progressing through Congress, with strong backing from the president.  But apart from the warm feeling that comes with an improvement in America's international image, what is likely to be achieved in real terms, and at what cost?  To get a good idea, U.S. policy makers need only look across the Atlantic.

The carbon capture fig leaf.  I've long been deeply dubious of the reality of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a technology that will let us have our coal and burn it, too.  I think it's a fig leaf:  the coal industry and the government wears it to pretend that coal can be burned without large quantities of greenhouse gases hitting the atmosphere, and the greens wear it to pretend that they're not so much "anti-coal" as they are "anti-emissions."  All of these groups, I've long suspected, know it's not remotely feasible.

Economists Without Calculators.  Last week, just before the opening of the U.N.'s Earth Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the New York Times ran an op-ed that decried the rapid rise in carbon dioxide emissions during the two decades since a similar meeting was held in Rio. [...] The authors' solution was a familiar one:  a carbon tax and/or a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.  Never mind that the failure of the meeting at Rio shows, yet again, that a global carbon tax or emissions cap stands absolutely no chance of being implemented.  Further, let's ignore the claim that we have an "addiction" to hydrocarbons, which remain the cheapest, most abundant, most reliable source of energy for billions of people all over the world.

MPs have no idea how to meet the 'carbon' target they voted for.  The great global warming scare has long been dying on its feet, but that sad fiasco of a conference in Rio last week saw it finally dead and buried. [...] [T]his leaves Britain as the only country in the world committed by law to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 percent in less than 40 years.  The Climate Change Act, on the Government's own figures, faces us with a bill of up to £18 billion every year until 2050, making it by far the most costly law ever passed by Parliament.

Cap and Trade Moves the Carbon Dioxide (and Workers' Jobs) to China.  Cap and trade advocates, along with their accomplices in the United Nations, will nonetheless continue to argue for their agenda under color of environmental protection.  This smokescreen breaks down very quickly in the face of economic reality.  If carbon taxes or cap-and-trade mandates make American power sufficiently expensive, energy-intensive businesses can deal with the problem by moving their smokestacks, all their carbon emissions, and the jobs underneath the smokestacks to China.  Cap and trade will therefore not even make the carbon dioxide go away, and it will make genuine world air pollution even worse.

Carbon Corruption.  The U.N. is funneling millions of dollars worth of tradable carbon credits to corrupt nations worldwide, including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Uzbekistan in an attempt to encourage clean energy projects in the developing world.  The U.N. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol.  Western European countries fund energy projects in the developing world in order to obtain Certified Emission Reduction credits (CERs), tradable credits that enable Europeans to count foreign emission reductions towards their own domestic emission reduction targets.

Obama's Lame Duck Plan to Pass Cap and Trade.  At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Wednesday [5/23/2012], [Sen. John] Kerry [D-Mass.] announced that he would not be submitting the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (LOST) before the November election.  Instead, Kerry intends to hold a series of hearings before the election, building the case for passage, before pushing the treaty in a lame duck session.  This is the exact same game plan Kerry executed to pass the New START treaty in the 2010 lame duck.

Did Steven Chu Sabotage BP's Top Kill Effort Just as It Was Succeeding?  [Scroll down]  So the question before us is, did the administration deliberately sabotage BP's top kill efforts for political reasons?  They were in the midst of trying to pass "Cap and Trade" legislation in the Senate so as to take control of the energy business through taxation and regulation and thereby promote their political crony capitalist allies in the "green energy" sector.  If they have nothing to hide, they need to fully comply with the legal requests for documents from the various investigations in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government.  Let the public know the whole truth.  That's the least we should expect from the "most transparent administration in history."

Clean-energy hostages.  After failing to crush the coal industry with the ill-fated Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, Mr. Obama has since loosed his regulatory agencies, especially the thuggish Environmental Protection Agency.  The EPA is on the verge of proposing its greenhouse gas emission rules for power plants — the "cap" part of cap-and-trade — despite ongoing litigation over their legality.  One concern is that the rules as implemented will block the construction of new coal-fired power plants — the very same sort of power that safely provides about 45 percent of U.S. electricity.

Europe's Unfriendly Skies.  Flying to and from Europe just became more expensive thanks to the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).  The ETS was instituted in January 2005, in an attempt to control greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide.  Initially the scheme applied to power-generating facilities, oil refineries, steelworks, and other heavy industry in Europe.  Now, as of the first of the year, the regulations have reached the airline industry, including aircraft based in the United States.

Harvard's Deep Green Pockets.  [Scroll down]  At the Think Green event, Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus lamented that President Obama used the phrase "climate change" or "global warming" in speeches 69 times in 2009, 73 times in 2010 and only once in 2011, leading to what he sees as "a crisis in environmental lawmaking" — his crisis being that nothing is happening.  In other words, climate legislation like Cap and Trade is dead.

Inhofe demands probe into possible abuses wrought by carbon credit market.  Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe is pushing for an investigation into alleged human rights abuses committed abroad by companies looking to tap into the emerging carbon credit market.  In a letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week, Inhofe demanded an investigation into crimes allegedly committed Africa and Latin America in the name of mitigating climate change — as sanctioned by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Australia passes controversial carbon pollution tax.  Australia's upper house passed a controversial pollution tax on Tuesday [11/8/2011] in what the government called an "historic day" after years of bitter debate which felled a sitting prime minister. Cheers and applause broke out as the Senate approved the Clean Energy Act by 36 votes to 32, requiring Australia's coal-fired power stations and other major emitters to "pay to pollute" from July 1 next year.

California Adopts 'Cap-and-Trade' Plan.  California formally adopted the nation's most comprehensive so-called "cap-and-trade" system Thursday [11/20/2011], an experiment by the world's eighth-largest economy that is designed to provide financial incentives for polluters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Europe gives up on global warming.  My nomination for quote of the day comes from Eurocrat Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's commissioner of the environment.  Europe generates only 11% of the world's carbon emissions (the slackers) and the rest of the world doesn't seem to want to rein in its carbon emissions, so Europe may throw in the towel on this whole global warming thing.  From Connie Hedegaard:  "What's the point of keeping something alive if you're alone there?  There must be more from the 89%."  The lady has a point.  If all your friends are not jumping off a bridge, why should you?

Australia commits suicide.  One of the worst aspects of living in these apocalyptic times is that whenever you look around the world, wondering where you might escape to, you begin to realise that everywhere else is just as bad if not worse.  Take Australia, an island built on fossil fuel with an economy dependent on fossil fuel.  What would be the maddest economic policy a place like that could pursue as the world tips deeper into recession?  Why, to introduce a carbon tax, of course.

Carbon-Credits System Tarnished by WikiLeaks Revelation.  As the world gears up for the next round of United Nations climate-change negotiations in Durban, South Africa, in November, evidence has emerged that a cornerstone of the existing global climate agreement, the international greenhouse-gas emissions-trading system, is seriously flawed.

NOAA's Climate Office: Precursor to Cap and Trade?  Cap and trade remains a key element in President Obama's vow of a "fundamental transformation of America," despite legislative branch setbacks.  Now he may have found a way around the Constitution's checks and balances.  Obama knows the consequences of cap and trade; he promised skyrocketing electricity costs when he was elected in 2008.  To date, however, we have lucked out:  Obama tried and tried and tried again to get his cap-and-trade bill through Congress, but so far, he has failed.

Supreme Court deals major blow to environmentalists.  Environmental activists, supported by a cadre of impassioned academic lawyers, have been looking to the common law of nuisance as a way to appeal directly to the courts and circumvent the administrative and legislative processes of government.  On June 20th, a unanimous United States Supreme Court dealt a blow to their theory.  In American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the Court ruled that the Clean Air Act preempts a claim that carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants constitute a nuisance under federal common law.

Cap and Trade Catastrophe.  On Wednesday [6/8/2011], British utility giant Scottish Electric announced that the gas and electricity bills of five million customers would go up by a whopping 19 and 10 percent respectively, beginning August first.  Six other major power providers in Britain are expected to follow suit.  The move follows a 30 percent increase in the wholesale costs of energy since last November, and will push average annual household costs for fuel as high as $2050, the highest level ever recorded.  Yet rising wholesale costs are only half the story.

Carbon Tax — the Magic Horn of Plenty.  We are told that the carbon tax will be "revenue neutral".  Big deal.  So was the budget in Soviet Russia — they took 100% of your income and spent it all. ... The relevant facts are:  (i)  that mild warming of a few tenths of a degree of warming occurred in the late 20th century, but that so far this century global temperature has not risen; and (ii)  that no direct evidence, as opposed to speculative computer projections, exists to demonstrate that the late 20th century warming was dominantly, or even measurably, caused by human-sourced carbon dioxide emissions.

Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm.  A Sydney carbon credits company thought to have been running some of the world's biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.

CARB Before Horse.  A court has tentatively ruled against California's cap-and-trade law because alternatives were not considered.  But then, neither were climate facts or the economic impact.

Cap and Trade Returns From the Grave.  The president presented his new, conciliatory face to the nation this week, and his State of the Union was as notable for what it didn't include as what it did.  He uttered not one word about global warming, a comprehensive climate bill, or his regulatory attempts to reduce carbon. ... Listen carefully to Mr. Obama's speech and you realize he spent plenty of it on carbon controls.  He just used a different vocabulary.

How to Get Rich from Liberal Delusions.  Global warming fraud is now in the midst of a slow collapse.  The Chicago Carbon Exchange just closed, because the investors figured out the scam.

Finding Reverse Gear in the New Year.  [Scroll down]  Another little Christmas surprise from the Obama Administration was a set of greenhouse gas regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, which needs to feel the cold iron of Jim DeMint's accountability legislation around its throat even more than the FCC.  The "cap-and-trade" scheme of socking the energy industry with massive new taxes, in the name of the increasingly deranged global-warming religion, was defeated in Congress... but the EPA dug it from its shallow grave, and released it to stalk the land, murdering every job that crosses its path.  Governor Rick Perry of Texas has already vowed to hunt this monster down and put a stake through its heart.

Federal Government Teaching Farmers to Participate in 'Carbon Markets' that Don't Exist Yet.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is teaching farmers how to participate in "carbon markets" despite the fact that such markets do not exist and Congress — in rejecting cap and trade legislation last year — has refused to create them.

Cap-and-trade rebranded as 'clean energy standard'?  While the GOP-controlled House will have knee-jerk reaction to anything called "cap-and-trade," members may not have the same reaction to an unfamiliar beast called a "clean energy standard." ... Energy use in America is already clean.  If the enviros need something to do, they ought to go pester their fellow communists in China, where energy use is anything but clean.

You Must Pay For Your Sins.  A British Gas advertisement says, "The future of Britain's low carbon energy supply is in safe hands."  ExxonMobil's advertisement says "we remove CO2 from natural gas by first freezing, then melting it.  The captured CO2 may then be safely stored, so it won't enter the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gas emissions."  How much energy does that take?  It means the product costs more and profits increase because the taxpayer subsidizes CO2 injection to increase oil recovery.

No Such Thing as Carbon Neutral.  If you can't stop yourself from driving your car, cooking in your kitchen, heating and cooling your home, exhaling CO2, then 'They' will charge you fees you can't afford.  'They' have set up unelected local authorities through the EPA who have no accountability to voters and who will decide who uses what resources to 'their' ends.  To insure your submission and compliance with 'their' vision of utopia, 'they' will place Smart meters on your home, GPS devices in your car, tax you for your non-compliant appliances, take away your incandescent light bulbs, tax your airline flight, tax your tickets to entertainment venues, tax and cut your water usage, tax your hair-dresser, tax your nail salon, tax your local deli, tax your (exhale CO2) dry cleaner, anything that does or doesn't move.  'Their' will be done on earth.

California approves extensive carbon-trading scheme.  California has approved an extensive carbon-trading plan aimed at cutting greenhouse emissions.  State regulators passed a "cap-and-trade" framework to let companies buy and sell permits, giving them an incentive to emit fewer gases.  The aim is to create the second-largest market in the field, after Europe's.

Carbon Warfare Rules of Engagement:  The government has total control of the raw climate data base, the vast majority of the funding for research and appointments to authority positions.  This level of control allows almost complete control of the direction of all science.  To counter this monopoly, independent scientists have only their informed intuitions, their courage and empirical reality to oppose government enforced dogma.

Al Gore's climate group shrinking.  One of Al Gore's campaigns to save the planet has scaled back its field operations since climate legislation failed earlier this year in Congress.  The Alliance for Climate Protection was operating in about 25 states at its peak, including Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  But the group now has field offices in just seven states.

Convenient untruths about corporate welfare by Cap-and-Traders.  Writers calling for government restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions like to portray themselves as realists grounded in facts.  Their opponents, they charge, ignore "inconvenient truths."  When the cap-and-trade crowd talks this way, it's especially rich when they prove themselves to be divorced from reality.

Never Ready for Prime Time.  Consider the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange.  It was established seven years ago to facilitate the "trade" part of a "cap-and-trade" policy.  Accordingly, the fortunes of CCX have mirrored the prospects of climate policy in the Congress.  In May 2008, as the Senate prepared to take up cap-and-trade legislation, CCX-investor optimism spiked — as did the price for a credit representing a ton of carbon dioxide on the CCX, at almost $7.  Then the Senate shelved the controversial measure and the price of a ton of carbon dioxide plummeted steadily, now languishing at 5 cents. ... The fall of CCX brings into stark relief the central problem ailing the entire "clean energy" industry that President Obama has promised to conjure:  It exists only by the grace of politicians.

Green job nonsense.  A funny thing happened on the way to Al Gore's carbon-free utopia.  Gore and his global warming buddies at the Chicago Climate Exchange have bailed out, leaving this company that sells hot air a worthless shell. ... The whole man-made global warming theory is quickly unravelling as the bean counters discover that throwing good taxpayer dollars at windmills and other green job technologies just doesn't make any economic sense, and in fact is harmful to any kind of economic recovery or job creation.

The Crash Of The Climate Exchange.  Lost in the hubbub leading up to the Republican and Tea Party tsunami on Nov. 2 was the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).  But its implications for the future of the American economy and the business climate are staggering:  It is an acknowledgment that both the case for climate trade and cap-and-tax legislation has also collapsed.  On Oct. 21 the exchange announced it was ending carbon trading, which, as Pajamas Media's Steve Milloy points out, was "the only purpose for which it was founded."

Electric Cars:  Low Volts, Falling Leafs.  [Scroll down]  One also has to ask what sources will generate the additional electricity necessary to power a fleet of EVs?  At present, those sources are coal (45%), natural gas (25%), nuclear (20%), hydro (7%), and other sources (3%).  To a large degree, EV's simply shift the usage of fossil fuels from the tank to the power plant.  It's nice to pretend that one is driving around carbon free ("taking emissions out of the driving experience," as Nissan puts it), but almost nowhere in America will that be the case.

Obama's Gas Rhetoric More Hot Air.  It would be a mistake to assume, on any front and particularly given the obvious denial and failure to receive the voters' message, that President Obama has suddenly converted on his key policy and/or ideological stances.  For relevant purposes, the best guidepost along the way of interpreting his words is the statement that cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat, and now he'll find others.

What the Election Means for Greens.  Cap-and-trade is now dead, having proven — as we predicted — to be the 1993 BTU tax redux.  Members in the House voted on both measures on the assurance that the Senate would not leave them hanging, only to see their trust misplaced.  As opposition grew more intense from the people — who were not at the table when their wealth was redistributed to various interests — the senators realized that they wanted to save jobs.  Theirs, that is.  Combine these and we see that cap-and-trade's ugly cousin, "green jobs," is sure to be an obsession very soon.  It also is sure to meet an unhappy fate.

It's not dead yet.
Skinning The Carbon Cat With EPA.  It's been said that a socialist thrown out the window will come back through the front door as an environmentalist.  This reminds us of something we noticed in the president's day-after concession speech.  Though acknowledging the cap-and-trade law is no longer a legislative priority, Obama also said he's not giving up on the idea of restricting Americans' output of carbon dioxide.

Obama Doesn't Rule Out Using EPA Regulations to Cap Carbon Emissions.  In a White House press conference Wednesday, President Barack Obama did not rule out using regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to cap carbon emissions in the United States without an act of Congress.  Meanwhile, on October 25, the EPA announced new regulations to limit "greenhouse gas" emissions by heavy-duty trucks and buses.

Al Gore's Climate Exchange Utterly Fails — Media Ignores It All.  The main reason that the CCX has failed, of course, is because the world has cooled for global warming.  With the recent election results in the U.S. cap and trade is as much as a dead issue and even other nations are shying away from Kyoto-styled global warming laws that tend to crush economies while offering little by way of global warming fixes.  Worse, with the emergence of the lies and obfuscation by global warming religionists as evinced in the email chain from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the credibility of global warming pseudo science has taken a major hit.  It all looks like globaloney at this point.

RIP: Carbon Trading.  In a little reported move, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is ending carbon trading this year -- the very purpose for which it was founded.  CCX will remain open for business, however, as it transitions into the murky world of dealing in carbon offsets.

US carbon trading — not worth a plug nickel.  A bag of charcoal BBQ briquettes is worth far more than a ton of carbon dioxide right now.  Stock up, you might be able to sell them to some unsuspecting dupe, one briquette at a time, just so long as you provide a certificate to go with each one.

If Al Gore's CCX Suffers Total Failure, Does the MSM Make a Sound?  Global warming-inspired cap and trade has been one of the most stridently debated public policy controversies of the past 15 years.  But it is dying a quiet death.  In a little reported move, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21 that it will be ending carbon trading — the only purpose for which it was founded — this year. ... Al Capone tried to use Prohibition to muscle in on a piece of all the action in Chicago.  The CCX's backers wanted to use a new prohibition on carbon emissions to muscle in on a piece of, quite literally, all the action in the world.

The climate change scare is dying, but do our MPs notice?  Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in "carbon" — buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2.  A few years back, when the climate scare was still at its height, and it seemed the world might agree the Copenhagen Treaty and the US Congress might pass a "cap and trade" bill, it was claimed that the Chicago Exchange would be at the centre of a global market worth $10 trillion a year, and that "carbon" would be among the most valuable commodities on earth, worth more per ton than most metals.  Today, after the collapse of Copenhagen and the cap and trade bill, the carbon price, at five cents a ton, is as low as it can get without being worthless.

Day of reckoning for climate vote.  Democrats who voted for the controversial House climate bill were slaughtered at the ballot box, including Rep. Rick Boucher, the 14-term Virginian who helped broker some of the key deals instrumental to its June 2009 passage.  In the Senate, several reliable green advocates also went down to opponents who derided tough new environmental policies.

Voters Punish Supporters of Global Warming Restrictions.  Senator Russ Feingold (D) thrust global warming front and center into the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, calling Ron Johnson's global warming views "bizarre" and "extreme" after the Republican challenger said he believes global warming is due primarily to natural forces, with solar variability the most likely factor.  Feingold, who polls suggested was in a dead heat with Johnson prior to making global warming a central issue, saw his polling numbers quickly deteriorate, and he ultimately lost the election by 5 percentage points.

Global warming issue may determine key races in Virginia.  For the first time in nearly a decade, not one Republican running for the Senate supports proposals to limit carbon emissions and trade pollution rights.  Most openly question the science of global warming or denounce it as a hoax.  In some races, especially in coal-producing, farm and factory states in the mid-Atlantic and Midwest, partisan rivals appear united in their condemnation of major climate change legislation.

The Extremism of Barbara Boxer.  Senator Boxer has been a sponsor of the Senate's version of cap and trade legislation, which was originally known informally as Boxer-Kerry and is now referred to as Kerry-Lieberman.  Its official title is the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.  Although it contains a number of provisions, its basic purpose is to create a system whereby the federal government places limits on the carbon emissions of private companies and public utilities.

Behind the Meltdown of the Climate-Change Bill.  [Scroll down]  "It wasn't a surprise to us that various industries were willing to sell out," explained Matt Dempsey, spokesman for climate change contrarian Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.  Industry biggies got in on the negotiations and "they were poised to make money."  No worries.  If the bill means higher fees, he added, "They can pass it on to consumers."  Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips agreed not to refer to the measure as a "carbon tax."  The senators decided to call a proposed fee on gasoline "a fee on polluters."  Anything but a "gas tax."

The Cap-and-Trade Crackup.  Even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi twisted arms for the final votes to pass her climate bill in June 2009, Democrats feared they might be "BTU'd."  Many of them recalled how Al Gore had forced the House to vote in 1993 for an energy tax, a vote Democrats later blamed for helping their 1994 defeat.  The politics isn't the same this time around.  This time, it's much, much worse.

Obama's Job-Killing Regulations.  Many Americans thought Henry Waxman's Cap and Trade nightmare was dead.  While Team Obama may no longer be able to push through another 2000+ page piece of job-destroying legislation, the Administration can use Executive Orders to implement many of the specifics of the legislation via changes in the regulatory policies.

Climate Change Lawsuits Heat Up, Led By An End Run In Connecticut.  While the United States Senate tries to decide what to do about proposed global warming legislation (the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act), Connecticut's attorney general and Democratic nominee for the Senate, Richard Blumenthal, is working to get courts to declare "cap and trade" regulations the law of the land.

Cap-and-Trade Bill Would Make Housing Less Affordable.  In addition to the devastating economic effects of cap and trade, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) — introduced by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) — would likely lead to the same conditions that caused the housing bubble of a few years ago.  It would do this by providing financial incentives to the federally funded metropolitan planning organizations to shift transportation resources and passengers away from automobiles to public transit and forms of non-motorized transportation such as walking and bicycles.  The bill further suggests that these be accomplished through "zoning and other land use regulations" that lead to a more crowded living environment.

Cap-And-Trade On Ice.  Senate Democrats have shelved job-killing cap-and-trade legislation, at least for now.  Neither the political nor the Earth's climate suggests it's a good time to try to fool Mother Nature or the American people.

Cap and Trade alive and kicking at EPA.  While it is true that Cap and Trade doesn't live in Congress anymore, it is very much alive and kicking over at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Worse, [Senator] Harry Reid and Congress didn't abandon Cap and Trade; they merely shifted it over to the EPA to guarantee its future.

When Cap and Trade Died.  While the abandonment of this economically crippling plan is important, it would be a mistake to believe that the end of cap and trade means that attempts to artificially limit fossil fuel use through government fiat in the United States are dead as well.  The truth is quite the opposite.

Carbon Cronyism:  Why Cap-and-Trade Is Not Dead Yet.  This past weekend, while addressing the Netroots convention in Las Vegas, Senator Harry Reid gave the gathering of lefties a promise regarding U.S. health care.  "We're going to have a public option," Reid said.  "It's just a question of when."  The same thing can be said of a cap-and-trade energy bill:  The Democrats are determined to get cap-and-trade.  It's just a question of when.  There's too much money to be made for Democrat cronies to let this opportunity pass.

Senate Halts Effort to Cap CO2 Emissions.  Senate Democratic leaders Thursday [7/22/2010] shelved their effort to cap greenhouse-gas emissions as part of a broad energy bill, putting aside indefinitely a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's ambitious effort to transform the way Americans produce and consume energy.  The proposal would have allowed utilities to trade permits to pollute as they worked to shift away from coal — a concept commonly called "cap and trade."

Will Dems Get Sleazy in November?  Harry Reid announced today [7/22/2010] that Senate Democrats — for now — have abandoned efforts to pass "comprehensive"(-ly destructive to the economy) cap-and-trade legislation ... Unfortunately we are still living under an EPA endangerment finding that will lead to eco-crats' regulation of greenhouse gases, regardless of how our legislative branch is constituted.

Not so fast...
Senate Energy Debate is Still all About Cap-and-Trade.  A headline on Thursday [7/22/2010] screamed:  "Democrats pull plug on climate bill."  Don't believe it.  It's a diversionary tactic.  The Obama administration and Democratic congressional leadership, seeing their window for shoving the country to the hard left closing quickly, are intent on making one last major push for cap-and-trade.  It starts with their "spill-response bill" or "energy bill," but it's really about cap-and-trade.

Reid Runs Out of Energy.  Now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to pull the plug on the energy bill, it will be dormant until the Senate returns after Labor Day.  Victory?  Not quite.

Reid Retreats On Slimmed-Down Energy Bill.  After whittling down a major cap-and trade energy bill to the point where it didn't even include cap-and-trade anymore, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., conceded even that was not going to pass the Senate.  Reid told reporters Tuesday afternoon [8/3/2010] that they didn't have the votes for the oil spill clean up and green energy subsidy bill he produced as a face-saving measure.

It's Really About Controlling Our Lives.  Within days, Majority Leader Harry Reid intends to bring sweeping energy and climate legislation to the Senate floor.  He won't call it cap-and-trade or cap-tax-and-trade, and certainly not a carbon tax.  "Those words are not in my vocabulary," he says.  "We're going to work on pollution."  Senator Reid's twenty-pound bill will be laden with lofty language about "clean energy," energy conservation, "green jobs," reducing "dangerous" power plant emissions, ending our "addiction" to oil, creating a renewable economy, and saving the planet from "imminent climate disaster."

Cap and trade bill will clobber D.C..  How will the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act affect your state?  The Institute for Energy Research has a new interactive map showing the percentage of carbon-based fuels used by each state.  The higher the percentage, the greater the cost if Kerry-Lieberman passes.  For example, Virginia is less dependent on carbon-based fuels, which account for 81.1 % of its energy consumption, than the U.S. as a whole (85.5%) due to its Lake Anna nuclear reactor (which, ironically, is not considered a "clean, renewable energy source" under this proposal).

Dems revive global warming legislation.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring a comprehensive energy and climate bill to the Senate floor by the end of the month that will include a cap on carbon emissions produced by the nation's utilities.  Reid announced his plans after huddling with President Obama about the Senate's July agenda and said he wants to introduce the bill, which has not yet been written, the week of July 26.

Hold Your Nose:  I Smell Cap-And-Trade.  We're receiving word that the next three weeks — prior to Congress' summer recess — represents the Democrats' best chance at getting a climate change bill passed this year.  Senate leaders are working overtime on this contentious issue to try to cobble together a piece of legislation that will muster the votes.  The House passed its own version of this legislation last summer in the form of a 1,201-page bill, complete with a 300-page addendum, entitled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a.k.a. "cap-and-trade."

"American Power Act" borders on being an act of treason against all Americans.  [Scroll down]  Renamed the "American Power Act", the bill put forth by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) borders on being an act of treason against all Americans.  The Institute for Energy Research commissioned Chamberlain Economics to do an economic and distributional analysis.  Here are some of their findings:  [#1] The American Power Act would reduce U.S. employment by roughly 522,000 jobs by 2015, rising to more than 5.1 million jobs by 2050.  [#2] U.S. households would face a gross annual burden of $125.9 billion per year or $1,042 per household.  The costs would be disproportionately borne by low-income households and senior citizens.

Kerry and his energy companies.  For all you curious as to why Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is so inspired to cut a deal on energy reform, wonder no longer.  Apparently, the senior senator from Massachusetts is positioned to hit the jackpot if a subsidy-laden energy "reform" bill passes.  In some years, Kerry makes more money in dividends and capital gains from these holdings than he does as a senator.

Paying President's 'Price On Carbon'.  The administration plans to use sleight-of-hand politics to sneak through an economy-killing tax on energy as necessary to save the Earth.  Make no mistake:  Cap-and-trade is a tax every American will pay in every aspect of his or her life.

Poll:  70 percent of Americans reject cap-and-trade.  Americans are on to President Obama's attempt to use the BP oil spill as an excuse to pass his highly unpopular cap-and-trade legislation. ... A new national survey commissioned by the Institute for Energy Research found that even with the oil still gushing out of the Deepwater Horizon well, 70 percent of Americans oppose new energy taxes that will drive up domestic energy costs even further.

Earth Is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say.  As the U.S. Senate prepares to consider enormously expensive cap-and-trade legislation, supposedly aimed at curbing alleged global warming caused by man-made emissions, scientists and policy makers at a conference in Chicago heard from experts in various scientific fields challenging the crumbling assumptions that have provided the foundation for global-warming alarmism.

GE appears to be Obama's Halliburton

President Obama's Job Speech.  [Scroll down]  The President recognized that unemployment was a serious problem shortly after his inauguration, and he created a position commonly referred to as Jobs Czar, to deal with it.  That position is currently held by Jeffrey Immelt, C.E.O. of General Electric.  Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) recently issued a statement calling for Mr. Immelt to resign or be removed because of G.E.'s transference of vital technology to Chinese state-owned companies.  Mr. Immelt, it seems, has created a lot of new jobs -- in China.

GE responds to charges of crony capitalism.  General Electric, with a larger lobbying budget than any other company in America, has long lobbied for and profited from Big Government.  Since Obama tapped GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt as Job Czar, this critique has spread throughout the Right.

The American Worker's Loss Is GE's Gain.  Whenever they need to justify another big government program, the president and his advisors are quick to criticize oil companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurers, the banking industry and anybody else who dares to turn a profit in the private sector.  There is one significant exception to this rule however:  the $150 billion conglomerate based in Schenectady, New York, General Electric.

General Electric Falling From the Days of Reagan.  Television host Bill O'Reilly has long been skewering General Electric and its CEO Jeffrey Immelt for his company's corruption and double standards.  He really let loose on a recent episode of "The O'Reilly Factor," bringing in several researchers who claim that GE, the company for which Ronald Reagan was spokesman from 1954 to 1062, [sic] was heavily involved with a corrupt charity called "Oil-For-Food" in Iraq that benefited Saddam Hussein and got American soldiers killed.

Sharpton's Affirmative-Action Win.  Eight months after Al Sharpton signed a pivotal agreement that helped Comcast and NBC secure Federal Communications Commission approval for their $30 billion merger, MSNBC appears poised to reward him with a prime-time news show.

Jeff Immelt: GE CEO or Obama advisor?  What kind of protections has the White House imposed to ensure Immelt isn't using the council to shill for GE's expansive interests?  The answer appears to be rather flimsy.

What is Obama trying to hide?  Small businesses are responsible for over 90 percent of net new jobs, half of GDP, over 90 percent of U.S. exports, and over 90 percent of all innovations.  It's irrefutable.  Small businesses are America's economic backbone, and its chief job creators.  Despite these facts, the Obama administration has given virtually none of the stimulus funds to small businesses and continues to give an estimated $100 million an hour in small business funds to some of the biggest companies in the world.  Since President Obama moved into the White House, some of the firms that have received small business contracts include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Dell Computer, Xerox, SAIC, General Dynamics, Bechtel and John Deere.

Obama Names Top Crony Capitalist to Help Wreck the Economy.  President Barack Obama's choice of Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and CEO of General Electric, to head his new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness demonstrates once again how clueless the president is about the economy.  Having not caused enough damage in the past few years, Obama is doubling down on policies that are slowing the still fragile economic recovery.  If the president really wanted to help the economy and create jobs, he would do the opposite of what Jeffrey Immelt has done at General Electric and has advocated for national policy.

When one man's 'loophole' is another man's stimulus.  [Scroll down]  The single largest "loophole," according to Treasury data, involves multinational corporations. These companies can defer taxes on some foreign income by deferring dividend payments.  The history and reasoning behind this "loophole" are confusing, but here's a clear sign Obama isn't serious about changing it:  The league leader in such deferrals is General Electric, which is famously close with the administration and whose CEO Obama has tapped as jobs czar.  According to Bloomberg, GE deferred taxes on $75 million from 1999 to 2009.

Government Electric and its secret bailout.  No company is more cozy with government, in my opinion, than General Electric.  GE spends more on lobbying than any other corporation.  So many of its businesses thrive on — or even depend on — Big Government:  defense systems, embryonic stem-cells, smart meters, greenhouse gas offsets, wind mills, electric car components, high-tech batteries, health-care products, and more.

Climate Profiteers.  According to a recently released Center for Responsive Politics review of reports filed with the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, General Electric and its subsidiaries spent more than $9.5 million on federal lobbying from April to June — the most it's spent on lobbying since President Obama has been in office.  Why?  As the fight over cap-and-trade grows, so does lobbying.  Since January, GE and its units have spent more than $17.6 million on lobbying — a jump of 50% over the first six months of 2009.  GE is just one of many organizations and individuals that stand to make money if cap-and-trade makes it through Congress.  GE makes wind turbines, not oil rigs, and has a vested interest in shutting down its fossil fuel competitors.

Cap and Trade.  So why would Obama push so hard for Cap and Trade, knowing what it does to the people and the economy... The answer is:  GE, yes General Electric.  GE stands to gain billions of dollars from this program through the stimulus bill and the purposed budget.  GE is receiving the contracts for wind turbines, and a new power grid.  GE's stock is down 37% in the last 5 years, they need their green technologies division to pull them out.  This is why Obama and the democrats are pushing the "Climate Change" issue.

Capping and Trading Away Our Jobs.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says this is a jobs bill, "Jobs, jobs, jobs."  Unfortunately, the jobs created in alternative energy sources will be more than offset by job losses; and the "millions" of jobs that the bill is supposed to create can indeed be outsourced.  In fact, GE is already importing wind turbines from its plants in China, Germany and Spain to supply wind farms in the United States.

Et Tu, Big Business?  Once-proud companies like GE have become seduced by global warming schemes, because they recognize that there's more money to be made selling white elephants to Uncle Sam than there is selling competitive products consumers want.  Indeed, cap-and-trade taxes promise to deliver precisely the protectionist industrial policies the left has dreamed of for decades, only under a "progressive" label.

GE's Big Brother.  The Obama administration has come under scrutiny for its ties to several large corporations, including the auto industry giants General Motors and Chrysler, whose bailout it engineered last spring.  But one corporate connection has not received similar scrutiny.  Since 2008, General Electric has been cozying up to the Obama administration.  The relationship is sure to result in financial gain for GE, while likely granting the company greater access and influence.  The arrangements set forth are legal, but the potential impact the interconnections may have — and the blatant kickbacks that have been offered — should alarm Americans.

How Obama and NBC Favor the Rich Over the Poor.  Is there a reason other than liberal bias that explains NBC's willingness to serve as an outlet for Obama Administration propaganda?  Could it have something to do with NBC parent company GE having been the beneficiary of federal largesse?

Government OK's Comcast purchase of NBC.  The federal government on Tuesday [1/18/2011] gave Comcast Corp., the country's largest cable company, the green light to take over NBC Universal, home of the NBC television network.

President Obama addresses audience at GE in Schenectady.  President Barack Obama toured General Electric's main campus in Schenectady and then addressed an audience of assembled company officials, GE employees and local, state and national politicians.

GE's Jeff Immelt Chosen to Lead Jobs Council.  Jeffrey Immelt's appointment to the Economic Recovery Advisory Board doesn't signal any change in direction for the White House.  Why?  Because GE CEO Immelt has been on board with Team Obama and its big government agenda all along.  Indeed, the appointment is the latest evidence that Obama's charm offensive with the business community is simply political window-dressing.  It's designed to distract the American public from an extreme regulatory agenda that moves forward unabated.

FCC 'cop on the beat' more like a bully.  Julius Genachowski is the self-proclaimed "cop on the beat" at President Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  That's great if the cop is as principled and honorable as Serpico.  It's not so great if he's more like Mayberry's bossy, meddling, interfering Barney Fife.  Unfortunately, Mr. Genachowski resembles the latter, not the former.  His handling of the joint venture between NBC Universal and Comcast went so far beyond the FCC's purview over such matters that one would think the commission were a legislative body, not a regulatory agency.

Trading Away Secrets.  The aircraft industry remains one of America's strongest manufacturing sectors, providing needed jobs and industrial sales.  Already buffeted by the heavily subsidized European Airbus, it may also face stiffer competition one day from a Chinese behemoth buying what American technology it cannot steal.  General Electric plans this week to sign a joint-venture agreement under which it will share its most sophisticated airplane electronics, including technology from Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, with state-owned Aviation Industry Corp. of China, or Avic.

Is Obama Resurrecting Nazi Fascist Economics?  Don't look now, but Obama again sails into uncharted waters by naming Jefferey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, head of his jobs committee.  Imagine, if this was announced by George W, liberals would have screamed like fat kids at diet camp.  But the national response is light applause and yawns, proving once again — it's not what is done, but who does it — that matters to leftists.  Fascinatingly, such collusion between government and big business recalls Nazi fascist economics.

A Crony Capitalist In Charge of Job Creation.  As we head into the 2012 election campaign, it is critically important for Republicans to make Americans aware of the difference between genuine free-market capitalism and "crony capitalism."  The former is practiced by those Americans who wish to succeed by taking risks, working hard and, most importantly, playing by the rules.  The latter are people who "already have theirs" and want to keep up-and-coming potential competitors at bay, using government as a club to do so.

Obama never wastes a chance to throw money at GE.  You might recall that the newly appointed Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Jeffery Immelt, is the current head of GE.  So when the administration claims that they're having a carbon neutral ride tonight, what they really mean is that they're paying GE to take away their personal responsibility and subsidizing the company of an Obama advisor.

Obama issues global warming rules in January, gives GE an exemption in February.  Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.  This week, the EPA issued its first exemption...

General Electric, General Obama, and the Level Playing Field.  [Scroll down]  A power plant that will be powered by GE turbines just received a waiver from the administration's new air-quality regulations.  You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.  Here's a challenge to the new majority in the House:  Will some committee chair, just one, call Mr. Immelt to testify as to whether he is a registered lobbyist, and if not, why not?  As a followup, does he see any conflict between his roles as CEO of GE and head of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and if not, why not?

General Electric is Obama's Halliburton.  FNC's Bill O'Reilly has already reported how General Electric, which is headed up by Jeffrey Immelt, a strong Obama ally who is on his economic recovery team and owns MSNBC an Obama media lapdog, will win big if Obama's Cap and Trade scheme is passed.  Now we learn from the Washington Examiner that General Electric, and other companies, will benefit big from Obama's killing of the missile defense shield in Europe through contracts with the Russian government.

General Electric: Obama's Halliburton?  The hypocrisy permeating the policy decisions emanating from the Obama White House continues.  General Electric will directly benefit from Obama's decision to renege on a deal to provide Eastern Europe with missile defense systems. ... One way or another, advanced aircraft manufacturing is migrating overseas, and GE, recipient of so much federal largesse now and into the future, is cashing in exporting tech jobs.

Tea Party Should Send a Message to GE, Jeff Immelt and Obama.  In his State of the Union speech last month, Obama attacked the oil industry and promoted GE's business interests in renewable energy.  Make no mistake, this will only add to Tea Party outrage over the president's partnership with Immelt.  If Obama had even a superficial understanding of the Tea Party movement he would have never chosen Immelt, who is the poster child for big-business leaders who represent almost everything Tea Party members oppose.

EPA-GE waiver story not over yet.  Kudos to Tim Carney for exposing the EPA's greenhouse gas emissions waiver for the proposed Avenal (CA) power plant which intends to buy gas and steam turbines from General Electric.  But there's possibly much more to the story.  First, the EPA has not yet granted the waiver to GE.  According to a Jan. 31, 2011 court declaration by EPA air chief Gina McCarthy, the EPA is planning to seek public comment on a proposal to grant the waiver.

Media Outlets Misreport on GE Receiving EPA Exemption.  In January, the Environmental Protection Agency began implementing its controversial greenhouse gas regulations for power plants and polluters for the first time in history.  Critics of the regulations assert that they will slow down economic recovery, and are expensive jobs-killers.  It should come as no surprise then that readers were angered to discover in an article published by the Washington Examiner, that just a month after the regulations began, the Obama administration began handing out exemptions to certain companies, the first of which was the very loyal General Electric.

The Not-So-Little Engine That Wouldn't Go Away.  An early test for the 112th Congress will come in the area of defense spending.  At question is funding for a second, unnecessary, unneeded and unwanted engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  Almost 10 years ago, Pratt & Whitney won the competition to produce the engine for the mammoth weapons program — beating out competitor General Electric in the process.  And while GE's engine lost to Pratt & Whitney's fair and square, you'd never know it.  Shockingly, both have continued to receive federal dollars over the past decade to produce two separate engines for one aircraft line.  How's this possible?

Chevy Volt: The Car From Atlas Shrugged Motors.  Recently, President Obama selected General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Economic Advisory Board.  GE is awash in windmills waiting to be subsidized so they can provide unreliable, expensive power.  Consequently, and soon after his appointment, Immelt announced that GE will buy 50,000 Volts in the next two years, or half the total produced.  Assuming the corporation qualifies for the same tax credit, we (you and me) just shelled out $375,000,000 to a company to buy cars that no one else wants so that GM will not tank and produce even more cars that no one wants.  And this guy is the chair of Obama's Economic Advisory Board?

Is GE Using CNBC, MSNBC to Promote Cap-and-Trade for Financial Gain?  It has been something that there have been rumblings about, but no one has really put the x's and o's together entirely — that General Electric is using its media arm, NBC Universal to promote President Barack Obama's so-called progressive agenda for its own financial gain.

The Editor says...
GE and Obama are both pushing for a "smart" electric power grid.  Coincidence?

Is GE dancing to the White House piper?  General Electric, more intimately tied in with government than nearly any other company, rolled out a new intiative this week, called "healthymagination."  That odd name draws a parallel to GE's 2005 initiative "ecomagination."  Like ecomagination, healthymagination held its launch event not at corporate headquarters in Greenwich, Conn., but here in D.C.

GE a corporate sponsor.  For all of the carping liberals did for eight years about corporate cronyism in George W. Bush's White House, they seem to turn a blind eye to the same behavior in President Obama's.  With plans in place for a major overhaul in the health-care industry, General Electric is positioning itself to become a major beneficiary of these health care reforms.

Feingold wants resignation of GE head from Obama's jobs council.  Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called Wednesday for the ouster of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt from President Obama's jobs council.  Feingold, citing GE's ability to escape paying taxes on its $14.2 billion profit last year, launched a petition to force Immelt's resignation as chairman of Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.  "We cannot stand by and watch while we are led down this road," Feingold said in an email to supporters.

NBC News Silent on GE Tax Issue.  The Washington Post reported today [3/30/2011] that NBC News conveniently decided not to report on a story that parent company General Electric avoided paying taxes on its income last year. ... The fact that GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on the President's Economic Recovery Advisory board and is been buddy-buddy with Obama only raises further suspicion the GE has something to hide.

G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.  General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.  The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.  Its American tax bill?  None.  In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Immelt backs tax-free GE, calls for reform.  The chief of General Electric on Thursday [3/31/2011] defended the conglomerate's zero tax rate in 2010 and called for reform of the U.S. tax code.  In his first public speaking engagement since a barrage of criticism about not having to pay taxes in 2010, GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt told the Economic Club in Washington that his company did nothing wrong.

GE Gets Obama Health Law Money.  Just days after General Electric got some bad press over how the company made huge profits, but didn't pay anything in income taxes, Congress was told the Obama Administration gave the company money to help preserve health benefits for GE retirees.  "I understand you gave General Electric $36 million to help their early retirees," Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) said at a House hearing.  "Do you think it was absolutely necessary to fund early retirees for General Electric?  Is that your position today?" Stearns asked.

White House defends embrace of G.E. CEO.  "Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries," [Obama] said [in his State of the Union address].  "Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all.  But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  It makes no sense.  It has to change."  Mr. Obama's choice of Immelt came under scrutiny Friday in the wake of a front-page story in the New York Times reporting that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits — including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations — GE did not owe taxes in 2010.  In fact, the story said, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

How General Electric pays no tax at all.  General Electric paid no tax at all in America last year and even managed to get a $3.2 billion 'rebate' from the government.  The utilities giant allocated just 7.4 per cent of its $5.1 billion U.S. profits in tax — around a third of what others companies its size are paying.

Free Enterprise vs. National Socialism.  General Electric, along with General Motors, is the prototype of Big Business in the Age of Obama.  GE bills itself as the world's largest industrial company; currently it ranks #4 in the Fortune 500, with revenues in 2010 of around $156 billion.  All has not been well at GE, however.  Since 2002, the company has laid off around 20 percent of its work force in the U.S., while expanding its overseas operations.  And the company's financing arm, GE Capital, sustained massive losses and had to be bailed out by the federal government.

GE's Scandalous Tax Breaks Are Rooted in Politics.  General Electric's (GE) U.S. profits in 2010 came to $5.1 billion, while worldwide it earned $14.2 billion.  It's [sic] tax bill for the year?  $0.00.  Over the last three years, GE's effective tax rate — how much it actually pays the feds — is a minuscule 3.6 percent.  By the way, since 2002 the "imagination at work" company has put its thinking cap on and cut 20 percent of its domestic work force, while shipping thousands of jobs overseas.  How does that happen?  The short answer is simple enough:  GE is the best corporate tax dodger in all the land.

How Awful Is GE?  In a rational system, the tax code would not be such a playground for the well connected and well heeled.  It would not stretch to 71,684 pages requiring high-priced lawyers and accountants to interpret.  It would not penalize the honest and reward the scofflaw, as our current system does, imposing a $2,000 yearly fee on every taxpayer to cover the loss in revenue from those who illegally evade taxes.  It would not chew up 6.1 billion hours a year in compliance time.  It might look more like the FairTax.  The problem is not that companies like GE take advantage of the system.  The problem is the bloated, burdensome, Byzantine system itself.

GE to Build Nation's Largest Solar Power Plant.  General Electric Co. announced Thursday [4/7/2011] that it would spend $600 million to build the nation's biggest solar panel factory.

GE's Profit Jumps 77%.  General Electric Co. reported a 77% increase in first-quarter profit, leaning heavily on its large lending business even as its core industrial operations picked up.  While GE's industrial businesses saw sales grow by 8% from a year earlier, their profit rose just 1%, weighed down by weakness in the company's big Energy Infrastructure unit.

Will consumers revolt against the Volt?  In a March 30 speech in Washington, Mr. Obama announced his mandate that 100% of the federal vehicle fleet be "advanced technology" vehicles by 2015.  This means that every vehicle in the federal fleet — some 600,000 currently — will have to be a hybrid or electric vehicle.  In an extraordinary coincidence of the kind so common during the Age of Obama, General Electric — headed by Jeffrey Immelt, the chief of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness — will contribute to the brave new "advanced technology" future by buying at least 12,000 Chevy Volts. ... Mr. Obama's mandate, of course, has a loophole that exempts him, allowing him to travel in style in enormous, conventional SUVs.

The Volt That Wouldn't Die!  GE President Jeffrey Imelt, you may remember from my past Volt posts, is now serving as an Obama economic advisor honcho.  Could there be any collusion or conflict of interest in the head of GE buying up unsellable cars with heaters that don't work in order to shore up bull-goose looney Obama fiscal policies?  Surely this would be impossible in the most transparent administration in history!

Is the GE chief simply adapting to new administration talking points?  When General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt said last week that he regretted all his green talk, I was not alone in hoping he might be giving up on seeking government handouts for things like windmills and greenhouse gas credits.

General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt says he regrets going too green.  Jeff Immelt, the man who's done more for the green movement than any other CEO in America, has now had a change of heart.  At least that's what he'd have you believe.

GE's Immelt to headline "Free Enterprise" jobs summit.  "Free enterprise" means allowing businesses to pursue profit as they see fit, with minimal help or hindrance from government.  Obama's jobs agenda, which Immelt is speareheading, is about subsidizing businesses producing politically favored products.

LED Lighting Prices to 'Plummet' By 2015.  Incandescent bulbs are being phased out in Europe.  In the U.S., efficiency policies will eliminate the 100-watt bulb in 2012.  LED makers stand to gain a bigger share of the $40 billion a year global lighting market.  Bulb companies including General Electric Co. (GE) and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (PHIA) are producing LEDs, and Salzman said startups that are developing low-cost LEDs will take a slice of the market.

Job Cremation Council.  General Electric honcho Jeffrey Immelt and American Express boss Ken Chenault laid out some embarrassingly lame ideas for U.S. job creation last week.  Mr. Immelt chairs the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and Mr. Chenault is one of its 26 members.  They've been at work for 90 days, developing their recommendations.

Wanna know how GE gets its tax bill so low?  There was much outrage when it came out that General Electric paid no federal income taxes last year.  "Cronyism" was the charge from some of the conservative critics of GE.  Some liberals called for fixing the corporate tax code.  But GE doesn't reduce its tax burden through bribery or cheating, or through naked cronyism.  Usually GE relies on — and helps craft — policies in the name of some public good: helping the environment, conserving energy, or creating jobs.  You can't really fight against the special interests while also promoting government intervention in the economy.

GE expected to report 13 percent rise in profit.  Analysts expect General Electric Co to report a 13 percent rise in net profit on Friday [7/22/2011], with strong demand from emerging markets continuing to offset weak U.S. demand and its slimmed-down finance arm.

Sounds like Obama's team is writing Mr. Immelt's speeches.
More economic nationalism from GE.  Today, [General Electric CEO Jeff] Immelt gave more of this economic nationalism talk, and more Germany and China envy. ... Again, you hear definite echoes of Obama's National Greatness Liberalism, U.S.A., Inc., talk in there.  "We're not trying hard enough" is like Obama's charge that we've "gotten soft."  "Play to win," reflects Obama's talk that we have to BEAT the Chinese at solar panels, and BEAT the Spanish at windmills, and BEAT the North Koreans at really tall hotels (okay, I made that last one up, but you get the point).

GE's 2010 Tax Return: 57,000 Pages of Nothing.  It's well known that GE didn't pay any income taxes in 2010; but now, we're learning that they filed a massive tax return that yielded nothing.

GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits.  General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't pay taxes on $14 billion in profits.  The return, which was filed electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and stacked.

The Occupation Should Be On White House Grounds.  At a recent town hall meeting, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, reminded constituents of a story that broke earlier in the year — that General Electric paid no taxes on profit of $14 billion, $9 billion of which was earned overseas.  Ryan related how he had asked a GE tax officer the length of GE's tax filing.  The tax guy said it was filed electronically but if it had been printed out he reckoned about 57,000 pages.  This speaks both to the complexity and unfairness of the tax code.

Conflicting opinion:
General Electric paid $2.67 billion, not zero, in 2010 income taxes.  Contrary to multiple news reports in 2011 that fingered General Electric as an income tax dodger during 2010, a GE representative told The Daily Caller the company did in fact pay more than $1 billion in U.S. taxes that year.  Additionally, a document GE provided to TheDC establishes that the company paid $2.671 billion globally in income tax in 2010.  The document, a two-page chart from GE's audited financial statements, turns on its head a strange corporate-accountability episode that began with an erroneous New York Times story.

What GE paid in taxes in 2011: Who knows?  What will General Electric (GE) write on the check it cuts to the IRS this year?  I have no idea.  And no one else knows, either.  This week, Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-profit group that advocates for higher U.S. corporate taxes, released a report saying GE paid Uncle Sam about $1 billion last year, or about 11.3% of its U.S. profits.  GE shot back saying it took an expense of $2.6 billion for U.S. taxes for a rate of 25%.  Both are most certainly wrong.

Dear GE, GM and Obama: We're Not as Dumb as You.  When GE announced at the end of February that it would be bailing out General Motor's green car strategy by ordering 12,000 electric-gasoline powered Chevy Volts for their fleet, it was more than just Government Electric doing a solid for Government Motors doing a solid for the Government Owners in the Obama administration.  Rather it was an admission of failure by the monetization arm of the Green Conspiracy to control market behavior.

GE pocketed $90 million from this stimulus program.  While the Obama administration deserves some credit for putting data online, such as the recipients of stimulus money, much of the data is posted in less-than-user-friendly formats.

GE Microwave Design Takes Currying Favor With Obama to New Level.  While former GE CEO Jack Welch is making news with a new op-ed slamming President Barack Obama for his burgeoning enemies list and his lack of leadership skills, Jeffrey Immelt, the current CEO of GE, continues to be completely "in the tank" for Obama — even allowing the Obama nanny state agenda to alter its design for microwave ovens.

Leaked e-mail shows how GE puts the government to work for GE.  "The intersection between GE's interests and government action is clearer than ever," General Electric Vice Chairman John G. Rice wrote in an Aug. 19 e-mail to colleagues.  Rice was calling on his co-workers to join the General Electric Political Action Committee. ... The full letter suggests that "share the values and goals of GE" really means "support policies that profit the company."

Climate trial balloon proves explosive.  The latest trial balloon for passing climate change legislation appears to be just as explosive as the others.  Electric utilities are divided over the prospect of a bill that caps their heat-trapping emissions while shunning mandatory limits on transportation and heavy domestic manufacturers, like pulp and paper mills and chemical plants.

Dems ready for big push on global warming.  Democratic leaders are pushing legislation aimed at fighting global warming, despite significant opposition in both parties to any proposal that puts a price or a cap on carbon emissions.  Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., told CNN's "State of the Union" he believes there are 50 senators who would vote for a compromise bill that would require the energy utilities to pay for carbon pollution and an additional 20 who are undecided.

EPA:  Climate bill costs less than postage stamp.  A climate and energy bill being pushed in the Senate would cost American households 22 to 40 cents a day — less than the cost of a first-class postage stamp, the Obama administration said Tuesday [6/15/2010].

The Immutable Law Of The Potomac.  Sen. Joe Lieberman believes American households are "willing to pay less than $1" a day to stop global warming.  The Connecticut independent needs a lesson in the history of government program costs.

Bam's climate Rx:  All pain, no gain.  The bill is 1,000-plus pages of rules, regulations, handouts, subsidies and whatever else House leaders deemed necessary.  Not one of the 435 members read the whole monstrosity — because the leadership dropped 300 new pages on their desks the night before they voted.  Yet the central point is clear enough:  The bill simply drives up the price of fossil-fuel based energy so high that the nation will have to somehow get along with only 17 percent of the gasoline and fossil-fuel-powered electricity that it uses today.

Congress not moved by Obama plea for global warming bill.  President Obama's call to action did little to increase the urgency in Congress to pass an aggressive climate and energy bill, despite hopes among environmentalists that the oil spill disaster in the Gulf could spur support for legislation that puts a price on carbon emissions.

Obama energy bill push straight out of Rahm playbook.  Rahm Emanuel didn't get his way on health care.  But he is getting it on energy.  President Obama has pushed hard this week for Congress to pass an energy bill, but has sent mixed signals about whether he wants a price on carbon, which would likely come in the form of a cap and trade system.

Our Hero Barbara Boxer.  [Scroll down]  Cap-and-trade is a Democratic Party platform plank, but ten senators from Boxer's own party sent her a letter explaining that they could not vote for her bill.  June 29, 2009 left the high water mark for climate change policy.  On that day, the House of Representatives enacted a cap-and-trade scheme, the Orwellian-titled American Climate and Energy Security Act.  It was the first time the Congress had put a price on carbon, a.k.a. taxed energy.

McConnell:  'Major Part' of Democrats' Cap-Trade Bill 'Essentially Written by BP'.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that BP, the energy company responsible for the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, helped craft the bill proposed by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that would tax businesses for carbon emissions and raise the cost of fuel for American consumers.

The "Say Anything" Power Grab.  As Utah Sen. Robert Bennett said, "It was very clear there were not the votes in the Senate to do a cap-and-trade bill and that the whole process was going to die.  Then we got the oil spill, and all of a sudden, somehow there is some connection between the EPA and the oil spill."

Did someone mention the EPA?

Obama and the Gulf:  Two Toxic Gushers.  While most Americans' attention is focused on the oil-spill tragedy unfolding off the shores of Louisiana, back in Washington, Team Obama is pressing forward, determined not to waste this crisis and use it to instill fear in Americans and loathing for all oil drilling and energy independence.  Their goal is to scare Americans into support for 2000+ pages of flawed, and openly corrupt, Waxman-Markey energy legislation.

More about the political opportunism around the oil spill in the Gulf.

The EPA Runs Amuck.  The current administrator of the EPA is Lisa Jackson who learned her trade working under [Carol] Browner until she was picked to head the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  A Browner acolyte, Jackson has presided over an EPA run amuck.  Jackson will be remembered for leading the EPA fight to get carbon dioxide declared a "pollutant" that can then be regulated under the Clean Air Act.  This is the same reasoning put forth by the constantly renamed Cap-and-Trade Act that is was a "climate" bill and has now become something else.

Exposing the Special Interests Behind Waxman-Markey.  The centerpiece of Waxman-Markey is a cap-and-trade scheme that seeks to lower carbon emissions by establishing an arbitrary cap on the amount of carbon a covered entity can emit and a trading program that lets "polluters" cannibalize each other to stay in business.  Any cap-and-trade scheme is primarily concerned with two issues:  at what level should the cap be set and how should the permits for emission be distributed.

Nonpartisan Proof:  Cap-and-Trade Is an Economy-Killer.  [Scroll down]  Nonetheless — and surprisingly — the report states that if the Kerry-Lieberman bill should become law, there will be net job losses and higher energy and product prices.  The Peterson analysis neatly buries those findings after stating that 203,000 new green jobs will be created each year for a decade. ... Yes, there will be new so-called "green" jobs that will include government bureaucrats hired to shuffle papers and enforce new green building codes, construction jobs to retrofit buildings, installers for solar panels, etc. However, there will be more jobs lost than gained should the bill become law.

Just Don't Call It a Climate Bill.  Despite the most creative rhetoric this side of ObamaCare, voters have figured out that "cap and trade" involves artificial carbon rationing and vast new energy taxes.  So the main goal of John Kerry and Joe Lieberman has been attempting to disguise these truths in the climate bill they released to much fanfare last week.

Kerry-Lieberman is a bad joke.  Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., have managed to write a cap-and-trade energy bill that should be greeted with guffaws from both believers and skeptics of man-made global warming.  At a cost of billions of dollars and millions of jobs across America, the proposal would produce virtually no reduction in global temperatures even after being in force for decades.

1,000-page climate bill is unveiled.  Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on Wednesday unveiled their nearly 1,000-page climate change bill, flanked by environmentalists, religious and ex-military leaders and energy industry officials.  But the glaring absence of a GOP senator underscored the bill's gloomy future in the 111th Congress.

Cap and Scam.  [Scroll down]  Praising the legislation, President Barack Obama made his customary case, twinning the fictitious economic benefits of statism with freshman-class utopianism, claiming that "we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced — jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain."

A few questions for climate alarmists.  The new Kerry-Lieberman climate bill mandates a 17% reduction in US carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.  It first targets power plants that provide reliable, affordable electricity for American homes, schools, hospitals, offices and factories.  Six years later, it further hobbles the manufacturing sector itself. ... Once population growth and transportation, communication and electrification technologies are taken into account, this translates into requiring US emission levels last seen around 1870!

Cap-and-Trade Is Back.  On Wednesday [5/12/2010], Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) plan to introduce legislation designed to inflate the cost of energy, strain family budgets, and decimate America's manufacturing sector — all in the name of supposedly saving the climate.  Kerry and Lieberman have been revamping legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives last year.  The House bill imposes oppressive limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and establishes a complex cap-and-trade scheme in which the federal government determines how much CO2 a business may emit.

Has Al Gore given up on global warming?  [Scroll down]  It has been reported that CCX [the Chicago Climate Exchange] is a LLC registered on the Isle of Man, a noted tax haven.  If this is true, [Richard] Sandor's 606 million was tax free — as would be any profits made by our former Vice President.  This would make CCX one of the great rip-offs of all time.

When White House Correspondents Go Green, Follow the Money.  In the Politico today [4/30/2010], there's a story about how the Natural Resources Defense Council is advising the White House Correspondents' Association on how to "go green" with their annual dinner.  They seem to be taking this very seriously.

Buying Corporate Support for Cap and Trade.  When (if) the bill is introduced, there will be lots of fanfare about how oil companies and utility companies support the bill (or at least aren't opposing it).  However, there's a reason for this support.  They are being provided all kinds of goodies as discussed in [a] recent Mother Jones article.  There will be government-backed loans for nuclear power plants, oil companies won't be subjected to the same cap and trade requirements as others, there will be $10 billion in subsidies for carbon capture technology research, etc.  It doesn't take much for businesses to use the lawmaking process to benefit themselves at the expense of the public and the economy.

Cap and Trade — Taxing our Way to Bankruptcy.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has declared (April 28) that he is making global warming the Senate's top priority.  With legislation likely to impose monumental costs on the nation's economy while accomplishing no real-world climate benefits, this is a fitting conclusion for a Congress intent on bankrupting the nation through sheer clumsiness and ignorance.  Global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade, confounding alarmists' computer models.  During the entire 20th century, as the planet recovered from the abnormally cold Little Ice Age, temperatures rose only 0.6 degrees Celsius.

Europe's Carbon Mafia, And Ours.  The carbon trading system being pushed here has spawned crime and fraud across the pond.  Cap-and-trade is not about saving the planet.  It's about money and power, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

Cap-and-Trade Treason.  Your government no longer represents you, the voter, the citizen.  Cap-and-Trade (H.R. 2454) allegedly is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no scientific justification for this because there is no "global warming" that requires it, nor is manmade, anthropogenic, generation of carbon dioxide (CO2) a threat to the planet.  Just the opposite, everything dies without it; all vegetation and all animal life.  Life on Earth would thrive if there was even more CO2.

How Cronyism Is Infesting Cap-And-Trade.  Supporters of suspending California's climate-change law submit signatures for a November ballot initiative.  Among the initiatives' opponents is an administration energy official who stands to profit from its defeat.

Green Scheme is Greatest Scam on Earth.  We used to have a few names for people selling nothing but hot air... con-men, snake oil salesmen, charlatans and thieves.  But today's society has been indoctrinated to think "carbon credits" (hot air) are a good deal, worth enriching only a handful of leftist elitists like Al Gore, who are raking in billions in cold cash selling nothing but hot air.

Environmental Mush:  An Ethical Abyss.  [Scroll down]  Reducing CO2, the supposed reason for, is also the reason being offered to impose Cap-and-Trade legislation.  It would drive up the cost of electricity to manufacturing facilities, to small businesses, to homeowners, and to everyone.  It would have zero effect on the climate.  This is the kind of fuzzy, feel-good, fact-less, anti-energy, anti-development, anti-capitalism philosophy that dominates environmentalism.  Its appeal is to people too young to have any idea where the power for their computer comes from.

Can the EPA Rely on UN Science?  When did America risk coming to be ruled by foreign scientists and apparatchiks at the United Nations?  The answer, it would seem, is ever since Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Obama, chose to issue a rule determining that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare.

Meltdown of the climate-change bill.  Supporters of climate-change legislation veered into the path of another liberal Senate priority during the weekend.  The collision has left the strategy of the global-warming theocracy in pieces, at least for the moment.

Backdoor Energy Tax.  From cars to coal mines, the imposition of economy-killing restrictions is under way.  Are the new EPA regulations on auto emissions the precursor to regulating carbon dioxide by executive order?

Obama Abandons Climate Bill in Congress, will have EPA Regulate CO2 Instead.  The recent announcement of the Democrat's switch of focus from Cap and Trade energy legislation to immigration reform is simply an administrative slight of hand.  Barack Obama and the rest of his co-conspirators in Washington including Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid know full well that a hard fought political battle in Congress over an energy bill was unnecessary.  Instead they have given the EPA their blessing to unilaterally determine CO2 limits for the nation.

The Global-Warming Tax.  Never has a public-policy agenda been pursued with so little regard for scientific fact or public opinion.  In March, 48 percent of Americans agreed that global warming, while real, is exaggerated.  When Gallup first asked this question in 1997, only 31 percent thought the threat exaggerated.  Despite this shift in sentiment, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and John Kerry (D., Mass.) and President Obama insist upon ramming a new global-warming tax (called a "fee") through the Senate.

'Cap and Trade' Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice.  Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change. ... Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it "cap and tax," and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.

Changing its name isn't going to fool anybody.
White House:  "Cap and Trade" is Out.  At the same time the White House is opening up to offshore oil and natural gas drilling, the Obama administration is backing away from "cap and trade," a market-based plan to limit the nation's carbon output — or at least that particular language used to describe the plan.  "I think the term 'cap and trade' is not in the lexicon anymore," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said this morning on CNBC.

Next Power Grab:  Cap-and-Trade.  E&E Daily reports this morning that Obama administration officials have met with Kerry-Graham-Lieberman to prepare an April push for the-tax-formerly-known-as-cap-and-trade.

Mainstream Media Ignores Climategate.  [Scroll down]  Having passed the healthcare "reform" bill, the Obama administration will turn toward the passage of Cap-and-Trade legislation that is entirely based on the IPCC's phony "science."  It is a scheme to sell and trade "carbon credits" intended to reduce "greenhouse gas emissions."

Cap and Trade Handbook

Cap & Trade Handbook.  Substantial restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, such as those championed by President Barack Obama and contained in the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, would force Americans to undergo severe and protracted economic hardship for little or no real-world benefit.  You don't have to take my word for it.  President Obama said so himself in 2008 in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.  Said the president, "I'm capping greenhouse gases. ... That will cost money.  They [utilities] will pass that money on to consumers under my plan of a cap-and-trade system.  Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Cap and Tax:  [Scroll down slowly]  Early last April, the House of Representatives took up a cap-and-trade scheme, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.  It was 600 pages long.  Two months later, Nancy Pelosi had whipped up enough votes to pass the bill, which by that point was 1,500 pages long. ... But ACES was dead on arrival in the Senate, so [Senators] Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham had to start their own vote-buying program from scratch.  Manufacturing-state senators want billions of dollars to compensate industry.  Farm-state senators want billions of dollars for agricultural producers.  Nuclear-state senators want billions of dollars for carbon-free nuclear power.

Next Up:  Cap-and-Trade?  Every time you think the Obama administration's chutzpah has maxed out, you read another story that teaches you that this is a quality that should never be underestimated.  According to the Daily Beast, senior aides are telling the press that once they are finished ramming an unpopular health-care package down a reluctant Congress's throat, they will begin the same process with a raft of legislation aimed at further depressing the American economy and increasing Washington's control of what will be left:  cap-and-trade carbon laws aimed at reducing the threat of global warming.

Cap-Trade Next For No-Tomorrow Dems?  Hurt by President Obama's partisanship, Nancy Pelosi's strong-arm tactics, the failed $787 billion stimulus package, the House vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and now the unpopular health care bill with all its related shenanigans, Democrats could easily lose their large majorities in Congress.

After health, Obama allies zero in on climate.  Environmentalists hope Obama will seize on new political momentum to push forward climate legislation, though some observers question whether he would seek another divisive vote as November congressional elections approach.

US carbon traders fear pink slips.  Wall Street was supposed to become the capital of a global carbon trading market worth a trillion dollars a year but now many who thought green trading desks would be the next big thing are fearing the pink slip.

Greenwash:  company guilty of misleading claims.  A carbon credits company, Prime Carbon, has been found guilty by the Federal Court of Australia of making misleading green claims.  Prime Carbon is a private company that produces and trades carbon credits created through soil enhancement and carbon sequestration programs.

The EPA's Power Grab.  [Scroll down]  At this point the transparent insincerity of the climate campaign becomes more obvious.  The Waxman-Markey version of cap and trade includes a provision that would strip the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases by means of the Clean Air Act — an obvious sop to the business community.  Seldom do the greens give up a grant of power such as they were handed by the Supreme Court's Massachusetts v. EPA decision (it's the green version of the Brezhnev Doctrine).

More about the EPA.

No Climate Bill In 2010, Key Senators Say.  President Obama's other big domestic agenda item, climate change legislation, won't happen this year, according to a Reuters poll of 12 key senators.

Cap and trade 'corporate welfare'.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada must mirror the Barack Obama administration in the U.S. on climate change.  Unfortunately, that doesn't explain what Canada is going to do if the Americans do something stupid.  Problem is, we know the U.S. is about to do something stupid — which is to set up a cap-and-trade market in carbon dioxide emissions in which 85% of the carbon credits will be given away to industry for free.

Green-Jobs Fantasy:  After declaring energy cap-and-trade "dead" in the Senate, the Left's new favorite Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) has been working hard to resurrect it under another name.  Working with Senators Kerry (D., Mass.) and Lieberman (I., Conn.), along with lobbyists for the major electric utilities (and, err, Big Oil), Senator Graham appears to have come up with a new boondoggle that would institute a cap-and-trade scheme for utilities only, thereby creating a carbon cartel.

The President's Bogus Green Economics.  [Scroll down slowly]  The proposals to transform the energy sector are so audacious that they can't even be justified according to the government's own rhetoric.  A simple reading of the president's own economic report reveals that the billions in handouts violate their own alleged rationale, and the government's own numbers show that the likely threat of climate change is less damaging than the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan.

The Edifice Falls.  The latest attempt to force the U.S. economy to turn away from readily available, affordable fuels and leaving it to the tender mercies of untried, experimental and expensive technologies is a bipartisan effort by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT).  A legislative package from them, according to The Washington Post on Saturday [2/27/2010], would individually cap how much traditional energy the main pillars of the American economy would be able to use.  This would of course cripple our economy and threaten our prosperity.

Will Californians Repeal Cap-And-Trade?  A California legislator pushes a November ballot initiative to free the state from the job-killing shackles of a 2006 law designed to fight climate change.  The other choice is freezing in the unemployment line.  At last report, California's unemployment rate was 12.3%, with 2.25 million residents looking for work.

The First Year:  A Near Total Disaster.  [The] Cap and Trade bill that would give the federal government near-complete control of the American economy passed the House by the slimmest of majorities.  It has been stalled in the Senate, but that hasn't deterred the Obama Administration's attempt to use the environment as an excuse to control all aspects of our activities.

Hackers steal emissions trading certificates.  The European trade in CO2 emissions permits has been brought to a virtual standstill after computer hackers cracked security codes to gain access to company accounts last week.  The Financial Times Deutschland reported on Wednesday [1/27/2010] that the hackers launched a so-called "phishing attack" in which they asked companies involved in the emissions trading scheme to re-register with the German Emissions Trading Authority (DEHSt).

European fraudsters steal $7B in carbon credit scam.  Fraud within Europe's carbon credit trading system has cost taxpayers more than $7 billion in the last 18 months, European police said Friday [12/11/2009].

Ask Not for Whom the Tree Rings ...  Malcolm Turnbull has just been toppled as leader of the Aussie Liberal party (ie, "liberal" in the classical sense rather than the leftie control-freak statist sense) and successor to John Howard over his bipartisan support for the Labor Government's ETS — that's "emissions trading scheme" or, as the new party leader Tony Abbott calls it, "energy taxation scheme."

Oh no!  Another climate scam scandal, this time in Denmark.  November was a horrendous month for global warming propagandists ... Now it looks like December could be another bad month because the Copenhagen Post Online brings word of an exploding scandal in the Scandanavian nation involving massive fraud in the trading of the Danish CO2 Quotas Register.  That's Denmark's cap-and-trade system in which companies buy and sell carbon emissions credits.

The Coming Climate Dictatorship.  The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a "climate emergency."  As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.  If you thought the House health care bill that nobody read has hidden passages that threaten our freedoms and liberty, take a peak at the "trigger" placed in the byzantine innards of both the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill just passed by Democrats out of Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee.

Boxer-Kerry Cap-and-Tax Hides Costly Mandate.  Under the direction of Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed its Boxer-Kerry cap and trade national energy tax bill in early November by an 11-1 vote — right before the week-long Veterans' Day break.  The seven Republicans on the committee walked out of the markup, refusing to participate in the process saying they hadn't been given adequate time to read the massive tax bill.  Imagine that.

The end of cap-and-trade.  It may not be the biggest scandal since Watergate.  But what appeared to be a clear path to massive cap-and-trade legislation just a few months ago now resembles a Jenga tower, and the scandal looks like the tile that will bring the whole thing down.

If you haven't already guessed, the writer is referring to ClimateGate.

Leading Climate Scientist:  Cap and Trade Could Ruin US Economy.  As debate over climate change legislation heats up on Capitol Hill, the Director of the University of Montana's Climate Change Studies Program, and a co-author of a Nobel Prize winning report, says cap and trade legislation could ruin the US economy.

Save the planet?  Kill cap-and-trade.  If members of Congress need yet another reason to kill the Waxman-Markey bill, the Obama administration's economy-suffocating, job-destroying energy program, Princeton University's Tim Searchinger and his colleagues have a humdinger:  Carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas.

Don't buy those carbon credits just yet.  Democrats' cap-and-trade climate change bill contains a provision that could suddenly render useless the carbon credits it creates, says Sen. David Vitter, R-La.  Vitter will speak at a press conference later today [11/10/2009] on how the bill establishes emergency conditions requiring the president to step in and use all of his authority over relevant agencies to stop global warming.

Obama's Health Care Rot, Calls For A Massive Boycott.  Both nationalized health care and cap and trade are red herrings of the highest magnitude and represent one of the greatest cons and Ponzi schemes ever devised by man.  Neither is supported by science, a national need, nor is either constitutional.  Either one will break the bank.  Both of them together will sink the good ship America in a sea of red ink where it will rot forever on the rocky bottom, never to surface again.

Did someone mention Obamacare?

Text of Suppressed EPA Report.  The title of the internal EPA report is "Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act."  The "Preface" of this report includes this statement:  "As discussed in these comments, we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject."

Scrap Cap-and-Trade.  There's much debate about the efficacy of controlling pollutants with economic incentives, also known as cap-and-trade.  Its advocates dress it up with a lot of moral indignation.  Cap-and-trade would not achieve its goals — and it would put America on a ruinous course.  Here's why:  The price tag would be huge.  Cap-and-trade would raise prices for the energy we get from natural gas, coal, and oil.  Putting a tax on carbon means that every American who flips a light switch, turns a car key, or buys anything made or shipped in this country will pay more.

None Dare Call It Fraud.  Imagine the reaction if investment companies provided only rosy stock and economic data to prospective investors; manufacturers withheld chemical spill statistics from government regulators; or medical device and pharmaceutical companies doctored data on patients injured by their products.  Media frenzies, congressional hearings, regulatory investigations, fines and jail sentences would come faster than you can say Henry Waxman.  If those same standards were applied to global warming alarmists, many of them would be fined, dismissed and imprisoned; sanity might prevail, and the House-Senate cap-and-tax freight train would come to a screeching halt.
This is an original compilation, Copyright © 2013 by Andrew K. Dart

Read the bills?  How about reading the Constitution?  [Scroll down slowly]  Read to Vote's efforts earned them a condescending Washington Post editorial last month, complaining that their proposal "would bring government to a standstill."  (Heaven forbid.)  "To read all 1,427 pages of Waxman-Markey," the Post fretted, "it would take at least 12 hours — tough on a tight legislative timeline."  Is reading the cap and trade bill tough?  Tough.  If you're planning to regulate every industrial process in America, you may have to do some heavy slogging.

Reasonable Respones to Climate Change.  The U.S. Senate will debate a cap-and-trade proposal in fall 2009 under the American Clean Energy and Security Act. ... Climate researcher Chip Knappenberger estimates the bill would only reduce global temperatures by about one-tenth of a degree by 2050.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates it would reduce U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.2 percent over the period from 2012 to 2030 — but other organizations estimate the cost to be much higher.

Nike, Starbucks and Other Team Up With the Left to Sell Cap-and-Trade.  Every day we have an opportunity to vote with our wallets by letting companies know there is a price to pay for colluding with those who oppose our values.

Capping and Trading for Profit.  I worked for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Federal Power Commission, for 32 years, and that experience taught me that no corporation or utility acts in the interest of the American environmental or social conscience.  You can be assured that Nike, Apple and the three utilities want a cap-and-trade bill to pass the House and Senate because it will strengthen their position in the marketplace and increase their profits.

Dictator Obama and Reaching the Point of No Return.  In virtually everything they say and do, Obama, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate have made it crystal clear that they do not care what We-the-People want.  They are now talking only amongst themselves and taking only their own counsel.  They want control OVER us — purely and simply.  And they're gaining more and more of it each and every day.  Cap and Trade (now called the "Climate Bill") will not help the climate.  But, it will take more of the people's assets and give them to the UN.

More about Obama's potential as a Marxist dictator.

Inhofe:  Climate Bill Is a Costly Non-Solution.  No matter how many times Congress debates it, and no matter how environmentalists couch it, cap-and-trade will do virtually nothing to stop global warming, and cap-and-trade, as Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "is a tax, and a great big one."  These are the fundamentals in the cap-and-trade debate, and Republicans must refocus on them.

Climate assumptions from another planet.  As the 821-page Kerry-Boxer climate bill gets fast-tracked in the Senate, as a companion to the 1427-page House bill, it is critical that we reexamine the assumptions behind cap-tax-and-trade legislation.  The Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Information Administration and other optimistic analysts claim America can limit and tax hydrocarbon use, and switch to "ecologically friendly" renewable energy, with minimal harm to families, businesses and jobs.  Their low-ball cost estimates are based on assumptions that can only have come from another planet.

New Report Exposes Special Interests Tied to Cap-and-Trade Bill.  In what has become standard practice in Congress with important legislation with wide-ranging implications, Waxman-Markey's 309-page manager's amendment containing many of the provisions "used to cajole last-minute supporters ... was not made public until 3 a.m. the morning of the vote and was still being collated into the official text as members were being asked to vote on final passage."

Congress Plots to Cap and Spend.  [Scroll down]  The CBO itself characterizes the creation of the allowances as a new source of tax revenue.  And it's right to do so.  If Congress created these allowances and then auctioned them off, it would generate $1 trillion in new revenue for the government.  The need to pay for those allowances would, however, put a dent in corporate profits.  And some firms would cut back production and either lay off workers or reduce their pay.

Kerry'd Away on Cap and Trade.  All told, sources tell [The American Spectator] that as many as 15 Senate Democrats are either opposed to cap and trade or on the fence.  It would take as few as four to deny the majority the votes for cloture, which means that Kerry-Boxer would fall to a filibuster unless the Democratic leadership — already tangled in the weeds of health care — wanted to try to ram it through using the reconciliation process.

Caught in a lie.  The Treasury Department has been sitting on some data that gives the lie to the administration claim that the cap and trade bill will not substantially affect the average American taxpayer.

"Cap" Industrial Competitiveness and "Trade" Domestic Jobs.  Waxman-Markey will undoubtedly "cap" industrial competitiveness and "trade" domestic manufacturing jobs abroad for an entirely undefined environmental benefit.  We can do better.

The Green Depression:  Wouldn't it be cool if the economy shrank even more?  John Kerry seems to think so.  John Kerry, the former junior senator from Massachusetts who by the way served in Vietnam, is leading the effort in the Senate to pass Cap'n Trade, a measure to combat so-called global warming by imposing massive taxes on energy.

Exposing the Special Interests Behind Waxman-Markey.  It is widely agreed that H.R. 2454, cosponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), is not an environmental bill.  This may seem counterintuitive because the drumbeat for global warming legislation was consistently used as cover to advance the scheme.  No, Waxman-Markey is about control.  The more of the bill you read and the more of the players around the plan you examine, the clearer it becomes who stands to benefit and why.

Cap-and-Trade Is Dead.  Long Live Cap-and-Trade.  President Obama's risky perseverance on health care is running over another of his pet government expansions — the cap-and-trade bill sent by the House on June 26 for Senate consideration.  Recall that cap-and-trade is complex legislation with a very simple premise:  make energy so expensive to consume that Americans use less of it, and "greenhouse gas" emissions are thereby curtailed.  But even though it's now clear the bill is not getting out of Congress, look for the Obama Administration to saddle our economy with this huge new energy tax through other means.

'Cap and Trade Is Dead'.  So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family.  "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week.  Now they are all in."

Live by the Sword...  A bill in Congress to curb global warming has a lot of Texans boiling.  The bill proposes to make some companies pay for the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases they emit, gases that scientists believe are contributing to rising temperatures.  And that puts the Lone Star State, which produces more emissions than any other state and even some big industrialized countries like Canada, squarely in the cross-hairs.

The Dog Ate Global Warming.  [Scroll down slowly]  So the question remains:  What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?  All of this is much more than an academic spat.  It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions.  Unlike a law, which can't be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can.  If there are no data, there's no science.

A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing.  It's one thing for President Obama to surround himself with the advisers he'd like to have, but it's another to bestow on them sweeping powers to broker secret negotiations and push forward vast new regulations that could cost American families thousands of dollars. ... Driving the push for this massive power grab and circumvention of the elected branches is a key White House official who avoided Senate confirmation by being installed not as EPA director, but instead as White House Climate Czar:  Carol Browner.

A Secret Cap and Trade Tax of $1,761 Per Family?  At the Values Voter Summit Saturday, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said of cap and trade legislation that "the Obama team had secretly calculated that his plan would cost the average American family $1,761 a year, the equivalent to a 15 percent income tax hike."

Cap-And-Trade Is Refinery Killer.  A new study shows that Waxman-Markey will increase prices at the pump, deepen our dependence on foreign oil and shred our ability to turn crude into gasoline.  Even fuel-efficient cars will still need fuel.

Stop 'emotionalizing' the cap-and-trade debate.  Environmental activists who favor anti-global warming regulations like the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill now before the U.S. Senate have long claimed that government intervention is essential to save the planet from an imminent man-made catastrophe.  In fact, only Waxman-Markey threatens to be a man-made catastrophe. ... The approach won't work because it would use a government mandate to create a market for which there is no consumer demand.

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year.  The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

There's a sucker boarding every minute.
New kiosks at SFO first to sell carbon offsets.  Travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport can be the first in the nation to wipe away some of the damage their flights wreak on the planet by swiping their credit cards.

Climate bill would bloat federal agencies.  The House-passed climate change bill, if enacted, would expand the federal government so much that it would take billions of dollars and thousands of new employees to implement.  Now-obscure federal agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have to become mini-behemoths in order to handle their expanded responsibilities.  Congress would have to appropriate billions of dollars for more bureaucrats, much of which is not reflected in the House bill.

Will the Pentagon Fight Global Warming?  It had to happen.  Because every other argument has failed them, the global warmists in Congress have adopted a new tactic in their bid to save their faltering "cap and trade" global warming bill: they are wrapping themselves in the flag.  Led by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the greens insist that combating [sic] global warming is the preeminent long-term national security issue facing the United States.

Energy workers rally against climate plan.  Local energy workers jammed a downtown Houston theater today [8/18/2009] to protest climate change legislation that the U.S. Senate will take up in the coming weeks.  The Energy Citizens rally, promoted by some major energy companies and business organizations as well as the Greater Houston Partnership, is the first of several such events planned in 19 states in the coming weeks.

Study:  Global warming bill could cost 2.4 million jobs, $1,250 per household.  A carbon emissions plan under consideration in Washington aimed at global warming and climate change could cost the U.S. economy between 1.8 million and 2.4 million jobs over the next two decades.

Obama's Wrapping Paper.  Perhaps by accident, but more likely by design, President Obama may have very well found the new cover he can apply to the statist ambitions he has for America:  "Saving the Planet."  If Obama is somehow able to get his much desired Cap and Trade legislation, already passed by the House, through Senate, it would open the door for all sorts of new laws and regulations that would seriously compromise the way of life that American have been accustomed to.

ACES Up Her Sleeve.  Well before Barack Obama brought hope to the White House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was adamant that something new and different and wonderful had arrived.  In 2006, the incoming Speaker pledged that hers would be the "most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history."  At the time, we were skeptical — to say the least.  Our refusal to accept her rhetoric was roundly vindicated last week.  That was when Madam-Speaker used every dirty trick at her disposal to coldly ram a 1,500 page global warming bill through the House of Representatives.

'Cap and Trade':  1000+ Pages of Economic Chaos.  The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, more commonly known as the Cap and Trade Bill, is dangerous for the country and potentially disastrous for the economy.  I cannot say this more simply.  This bill which is designed to lower emissions and stop global warming will do nothing except raise the average Americans' expenses and cause the loss of many American jobs.

Climate bill may fall by the wayside.  With the fight over health care reform absorbing all the bandwidth on Capitol Hill, Democrats fear a major climate change bill may be left on the cutting-room floor this year.  A handful of key senators on climate change are almost guaranteed to be tied up well into the fall on health care.

Waxman-Markey Bill Would Raise Electricity Prices $846 Billion.  The Waxman-Markey bill to restrict carbon dioxide emissions would cost $846 billion in the next decade alone, in the form of required payments for emissions allowances, according to a June 5 report from the Congressional Budget Office.  The bill has been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and is pending action in the Senate.

Food prices to surge under emissions trading scheme.  Shoppers face a jump in grocery prices of up to 7 percent under Labor's scheme to reduce carbon emissions, prompting calls for the Rudd government to come up with a compensation package to help low- and middle-income families.  Big retailers have warned the government that the proposed emissions trading scheme would add between 4 and 7 percent to shopping bills in what would be a de facto tax on food.

Waxman-Markey Deserves to Die.  Most of America's states and communities didn't much like the bill.  No wonder, for it would regulate many things — energy, wages, imported goods, corporations, states, cities, buildings and houses, snowmobiles, lawn mowers, light fixtures, candelabra base lamps and many others — while containing broad exemptions for regulation of agribusiness, ethanol and biofuels.  The Waxman-Markey bill would be without question the biggest expansion of federal government control over our economy since the 1930s.

Be honest with U.S. farmers about cap-and-trade.  Essentially, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has described it, cap-and-trade pushes consumers away from fossil fuels by making them more expensive.  For agriculture, it could mean a direct hit on our competitiveness with no environmental benefit.  Crops are grown locally, but our producers must compete globally.  We know without question that if the United States acts alone, we will have accomplished nothing with regard to the global climate.

Australia carbon trading scheme blocked in parliament.  Australia could have a snap election after opposition and Greens senators blocked the progress of the world's most ambitions carbon trading scheme through the parliament's upper house.  The government-backed plan would force the country's 1,000 worst polluters to buy carbon dioxide permits, covering 75 percent of national emissions, in an attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5 to 25 percent by 2020.

Obama's Pitchforks:  [Scroll down]  Next came Cap and Trade.  Americans know that the Global Warming crowd has a history of doomsday prophecies that have not happened, yet is attempting to rush through the Cap and Trade law which would increase our utility bills by hundreds, if not thousands of dollars per year for no apparent reason at all.

Vote For Dave.  Dave McArthur owns a few bakeries in St Louis, Missouri; McArthur's Bakery. ... Dave asked — no, ... he begged his representative Russ Carnahan (D-MO) to tell him exactly how the cap and trade bill will affect him.  In fact Dave merely wants to know if there is a maximum amount he can see in natural gas and electricity prices as a result of the bill.  It's a yes or no answer.  Yes, there is a maximum amount or no there is no maximum amount. ... At the time Dave asked Russ Carnahan the simple question, the good Congressman had not yet read the bill for which he voted.

Americans Are Beginning to Understand the Left.  The left everywhere seeks to make as big and powerful a state as possible.  It does so because only the state can redistribute society's wealth.  And because only a strong and powerful state can impose values on society.  The idea of small government, the American ideal since its inception, is the antithesis of the left's ideal.  The cap-and-trade bill's control of American energy and the ObamaCare takeover of American health care will mean an unprecedented expansion of the state.  Added to increased taxes and the individual becomes less and less significant as the state looms ever larger.

CBO Lowballs Waxman-Markey Cost.  Supporters of economy-killing cap-and-trade legislation not only misquote the Congressional Budget Office's report lowballing the costs.  They ignore how CBO cooked the books to get its numbers.

Meet Al Gore — your new interior designer.  Just how bad is cap-and-trade for Kentucky and America?  If it becomes law, it will provide every American with a new interior decorator — Al Gore.  Bet you didn't know that was included in the deal, did you?  It will force all of us to spend thousands of dollars to upgrade our homes with new energy efficient windows, doors and even appliances before we sell or borrow against equity.

Is Cap-And-Trade Just Political Posturing?  If Not, It Could Mean Economic Suicide.  President Obama's climate change legislation, the so-called "clean energy" bill, has passed the House of Representatives and is now being debated in the Senate.  The president claims the bill will "spark a clear energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet."  In reality, the bill will have no impact whatsoever on global warming.

The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End.  There is no shortage of threats to our economy.  America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing.  Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs.  Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Cap and trade — The path to 'global governance'.  It's been nearly a year since President Barack Obama spoke in Berlin as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.  There, he described himself as not merely a citizen of the United States, but as a "fellow citizen of the world."  What was originally a rhetorical flourish has become a particularly revealing indicator of the president's sentiments on national sovereignty.

EPA Cover-Up.  "Cap and trade" is first a massive indirect tax on the American people and hence another source of revenue for Congress.  More importantly "cap and trade" is just about the most effective tool for controlling most economic activity short of openly declaring ourselves a communist nation and it's a radical environmentalist's dream come true.  So why the rush and the press on the Senate?  Increasing evidence is emerging that far from there being global warming, the Earth has been cooling and has been doing so for 10 years.

Cap and Trade spells disaster.  [Scroll down]  To see how extreme HR 2454 is, one need only go to page 106-107 of the bill.  "Congress finds that the status of oil as a strategic commodity which derives from its domination of the transportation sector presents a clear and present danger to the United States."  With this one statement, House Democrats have declared war on the oil industry.  Currently, oil is supplying the vast majority of this country's energy requirements.  While we need to continue to diversify our energy supplies, we cannot ignore reality.

The Carbonated Congress.  Even if the law works as intended, over the next decade or two real U.S. greenhouse emissions might be reduced by 2% compared to business as usual.  However, consumers would still face higher prices for electric power, transportation and most goods and services as this inefficient and indirect tax flowed down the energy chain.  The sound bite is that this policy would only cost households "a postage stamp a day."  But that's true only as long as the program doesn't really cut emissions.  The goal here is to tell voters they'll pay nothing in order to get the cap-and-tax bureaucracy in place — even though the whole idea is to raise prices to change American behavior.

Green nonsense.  Waxman-Markey contains unpleasant surprises for Americans, including a provision which could prevent homeowners from selling their homes if they aren't retrofitted to meet federal "green" guidelines.  But the House passed the 1,400-page bill before its members had an opportunity to read it, much less ponder its implications.  Let's pray the Senate is more responsible.

Cap and traitors.  Conservative activists are angry at eight Republican members of the House of Representatives for voting in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed the House June 26.  They are right to be angry, but their outrage is misplaced.  With the exception of New Jersey's Rep. Christopher H. Smith, these so-called RINOs (Republicans in name only) represent districts that voted for President Obama after he campaigned on a promise to fight global warming at any cost.  As such, they were only following the misguided will of their constituents.

Just another myth used to steal your taxes.  While a 1,000-page bill with a one-day imperative to pass it was being rammed through the House, 300 pages worth of pork amendments were inserted in the wee hours of the night in order to buy certain congressmen's votes (a catfish museum is coming soon to a congressional district near you).  Apparently, Congress is breathlessly trying to save the environment in one day.

Byrd Blasts 'Cap and Trade'.  He is not yet back to work in the Senate chamber, but U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd is opposing "cap and trade" legislation pushed by the Obama administration. ... "I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement.  "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy.

Obama's drive for climate change bill hits delay.  As President Barack Obama encouraged world leaders meeting in Italy to intensify the fight against global warming, legislation to cut U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases suffered a delay in the Senate on Thursday.  The leading Senate committee responsible for developing the climate change legislation has delayed by at least a month its crafting of a bill, leaving less time for Congress to fulfill Obama's desire to enact a law this year.

The Commissars of Cool.  The two most invasive means our central government has at its disposal to control American lives and livelihoods are taxation and regulation, and this bill is a double header.  It authorizes BHO's government to collect substantial new taxes and to exercise unprecedented economic control via new environmental regulations, all against a backdrop of the worst economic decline since Jimmy Carter was at the helm.

Killing Cap & Trade.  The refusal of China and India to go along with the carbon-dioxide limits should be the death knell for the Cap and Trade bill currently being considered by the Senate.  The legislation is a pretty hard sell.  Even advocates admit restrictions would only have a small effect — only a fraction of 1° Celsius, a virtually unnoticeable .07° — on global temperatures by 2050.

Commerce Secretary:  Americans 'Need to Pay' for Chinese Emissions.  With the U.S. secretaries of energy and commerce in China this week, much of the attention focused on the standoff over emissions reductions or small breakthroughs in clean-tech cooperation.  But yesterday [7/16/2009], Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said something amazing — U.S. consumers should pay for part of Chinese greenhouse-gas emissions.

Small Businesses Irate Over Climate Change Bill.  The revolution will not be televised:  it's been blinking along on a giant bakery sign in St. Louis, Mo., instead.  Fed up with his congressman's vote on a sweeping climate-change bill that passed the House of Representatives in late June, the proprietor of McArthur's Bakery took to his street sign and posted a clear message to all passersby:  "Russ Carnahan voted to ... close us and other ... small business."

Bound to Burn.  We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach.  We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions — because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy.  What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still.  We don't control the global supply of carbon.

House climate bill wouldn't cut U.S. oil dependence much.  Despite its title as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," the energy and climate bill that the House of Representatives passed recently takes only a modest step toward reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  Two studies project that the legislation would cut oil use in the future, but not enough to make much of a dent in dependence on oil from unstable or unfriendly foreign suppliers.

Climate bill gives huge powers to government.  In less than a year, we have witnessed a government takeover of banks and lending institutions, a presidential firing of an executive at a major corporation — General Motors — and the toppling of established U.S. bankruptcy laws to the benefit of the president's political allies.  But this breathtaking claim of power may pale in comparison to the impact Americans will feel from enactment of the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Law, which has been passed by the Democratic-controlled House.

Energy Bill Text Says It Will Cost Americans Money.  The text of the "cap-and-trade" energy bill, which passed the House of Representatives late last month, contains a frank admission that all Americans will experience "loss in their purchasing power" — meaning a rise in electricty and energy costs.  The bill also lays out an Energy Refund Program to offset the higher energy costs, but only for low-income households.

Q and A on the Climate Bill.  The climate bill approved by the House last month started out as an idea — fight global warming — and wound up looking like an unabridged dictionary.  It runs to more than 1,400 pages, swollen with loopholes and giveaways meant to win over un-green industries and wary legislators.

Cap-and-Trade and Inconvenient Truths.  The earth no more has a fever than Al Gore has a clue.  But the science that continues to contest and debunk the nonsense Gore and the warmers have pushed out there is having a tough time overcoming the institutional impetus of a Congress, which is ideologically vested in the old message.  And, of course, there's the massive amounts of money and power (both for the government and certain private sources which have helped foment this panic) to be derived from legislation such as cap-and-trade.

Cap and Trade:  The Big Con.  Masquerading as an instrument of environmental salvation, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill will result in one of the largest seizures of wealth in human history.  The legislation will wreak havoc on American manufacturing and industry, and coerce the conformity of an already economically squeezed populace.  The bill is a transparent power grab, based on a fictional crisis — the left's ever-dependable threat of global warming.

The Empirical President.  The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges that under Waxman-Markey, emissions of CO2 will not be reduced by the year 2020.  The Waxman/Markey bill will have little to no impact on world production of greenhouse gases, which are supposed to be responsible for global temperature increases that stopped nearly a decade ago.

EPA's Game of Global Warming Hide-and-Seek.  In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. ... But Carlin's study didn't fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn't make the cut. ... The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) "is an individual who is not a scientist."  Neither is Al Gore.  Nor is energy czar Carol Browner.  Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi.

The Decline of Thinking.  The political establishment's response to the global warming doubts raised by EPA researcher, Alan Carlin, is remarkable.  The mantra chanted by one EPA official — and dutifully echoed across the media — is that Mr. Carlin "is not a scientist."  This fact, of course, has not kept Al Gore from becoming the patron saint of the environmental religion.  (Gore received his PhD in which of the recognized sciences?)  An assertion of this sort is evidence of the anti-intellectualism that has metastasized across academia and spread to other venues of expression.

Cap-and-suppress.  [Scroll down]  Moreover, the report said, "Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until 2030) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."  Which is why President Obama and the Democrats are rushing their blatantly socialistic and massively expensive cap-and-trade bill through Congress.  They want it to become law before the global-warming theory unravels completely.  So if Americans don't speak up now, they will be saddled with this multitrillion-dollar monstrosity that purports to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Cap and Trade; a Solution to a Non-existent Problem with Devastating Consequences.  D.H. Lawrence said, "Never trust the teller.  Trust the tale."  But what happens if the tale is wrong?  What happens if the teller knows or should know the tale is wrong?  The key word is trust.  A relationship must have trust.  A society can only exist with trust.  Political leaders can only succeed with trust.  Trust cannot exist when an unnecessary end is reached by false means, which is happening with the US climate and energy policies.

These People Truly Hate America.  Far too many Americans were distracted by other things to notice that on Friday, June 26th, 211 House Democrats and 8 Republicans defiantly thumbed their noses at the will of their constituents and passed the largest tax increase in the nation's history.  The "Cap-and-Trade" bill will likely kill two or three real jobs for every so-called green job it creates.  If this bill passes the Senate, the president's signature will make it the law of the land. If that happens, look for your utility bills to increase by fifty percent.

The Censorious Left's Global Warming Denier Deniers.  There is so much misinformation on the subject of global warming and so little consensus — as to what environmental changes are occurring, whether human behavior is contributing to them, whether they are causing significant environmental damage, and whether the proposed cap and trade legislation would do anything to alleviate any of this — it is no wonder our freedom-hating majority in the House insisted on cramming it through before they could even read, much less digest, what it contained.

Last-Minute Amendment to Cap-and-Trade Bill Includes Indecipherable Provisions.  Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) inserted a last-minute 310-page amendment into the cap-and-trade climate change bill just hours before the bill reached a House vote last Friday evening, and the amendments included indecipherable provisions for something called a "central procurement state."  Lawmakers, who eventually passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 on a 219-212 vote, had little time to review the lengthy amendment, which was posted at 3:09 a.m. Friday, less than 15 hours before the 5:30 p.m. vote.

Obama downplays global warming in effort to sell new regulations.  Touting the economic benefits of his energy bill while playing down the climate change aspects, President Barack Obama expressed confidence the measure will clear the Senate. ... The House late last week narrowly approved a bill that includes a cap-and-trade provision requiring industry to reduce emissions associated with climate change by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

Democrats Admit That Their Cap and Trade Bill Is a Job Killer.  In her remarks bringing the debate over the climate bill to a close, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California urged her colleagues to vote in favor of the cap and trade bill, saying the measure was about four things:  "jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs."  She was right — the House-passed version of cap and trade is all about jobs:  jobs lost, jobs never created, jobs sent overseas, and, unbelievably, jobs people will be paid for doing long after they cease to exist.

Smoke gets in your ice.  Many Americans find the debate in Washington over adopting a "cap-and-trade" program to reduce carbon dioxide a bit confusing.  That's understandable.  Put simply, it's a tax on energy consumption.  In fact, it would be a huge tax.  If enacted, cap-and-trade would be one of the government's largest revenue sources within the next decade.  It also would break one of President Obama's promises.  In his speech before Congress in February, he said, "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime."  Unless you use energy, apparently.

Republicans who helped pass "cap and trade" benefitted from environmental donations.  House Republicans who received campaign donations from environmental groups helped make up the narrow margin of votes needed to send the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill over to the U.S. Senate.  The legislation passed by a vote of just 219 to 212 on Friday 6/26/2009 with critical assistance from eight Republicans.

U.S. Will Suffer So Dems Can 'Save the Planet'.  The recently passed House bill on global warming is a 1,500-page political sucker punch that could give family finances a bloody nose and ultimately flatten the economy while proponents pretend it will save the planet.  In and of itself, it won't do an inch of good.  Assume if you want that all the talk of unperturbed greenhouse gases finally frying us is true and that the bill would slowly reduce carbon emissions in the United States to roughly the level of 100 years ago.  The impact of holding down an increase in world temperatures by the end of this century would still be something utterly unnoticeable.

Before cap and trade, how about proof and truth?  While campaigning, Obama claimed, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket."  But now he claims it will only cost the price of a postage stamp a day.  Designed to combat global warming (well, "climate change" as they now call it to give themselves a measure credibility since global temperatures have actually dropped over the last decade), cap and trade will do little to help our planet.

Cap and confuse.  Here's how to get a dubious bill into law, or at least past the U.S. House of Representatives, which last week deserved to be called the lower chamber:  First, make the bill long.  Very long.  So long no one may actually read it, supporters or opponents.  Make even a key amendment 310 pages long.  Introduce this horse-choker of an amendment at 3 in the morning of the day of the roll-call vote.  So it can't be examined too closely or too long.  Only after the bill passes may its true costs emerge.  To cite an old proverb we just made up: Pass in haste, repent at leisure.

They Hate the American We Love.  Far too many Americans were distracted by other things to notice that on Friday, June 26, 211 House Democrats and 8 Republicans defiantly thumbed their noses at the will of their constituents and passed the largest tax increase in the nation's history.  The "Cap-and-Trade" bill will likely kill two or three real jobs for every so-called green job it creates.  If this bill passes the Senate, the president's signature will make it the law of the land.  If that happens, look for your utility bills to increase by fifty percent.

Power bills could soar under Obama's energy plan.  Imagine your power bill going up by $200 a month.  Progress Energy spokesman Mike Hughes said Thursday [7/2/2009] that it's a possibility under President Barack Obama's energy plan that narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week.

Cap and Trade Dementia.  Barack Obama called for House passage of the cap and trade tax bill last Friday by calling it a jobs bill.  The bill is designed to raise the price of energy in the U.S. so much that it will reduce the use of fossil fuels by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050.  Sentencing the U.S. economy to high cost energy is not a particularly good strategy for creating jobs.  The Charles River Associates, a Harvard based economics consulting firm, estimates a net loss of jobs from the bill of about 2.5 million each year.  This is surely a gross underestimate of the net job losses from a bill designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels to the level in 1907.

No climate debate?  Yes, there is.  In his weekly address on Saturday, President Obama saluted the House of Representatives for passing Waxman-Markey, the gargantuan energy-rationing bill that would amount to the largest tax increase in the nation's history.  It would do so by making virtually everything that depends on energy — which is virtually everything — more expensive. ... No one who cares about the environment or the nation's economic well-being should take it on faith that climate change is a crisis, or that drastic changes to the economy are essential to "save the planet."

Obama's Statist Ambitions:  Back in 2008, then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared "we need a president who is ready on day one to be commander in chief of our economy."  You can't find that role in the Constitution, but Barack Obama has embraced it nonetheless.  The president is hell-bent on further extending government control over Americans' health care, and the administration-backed cap and trade bill that passed the House Friday, would, among other things, create a national building code.

Waxman-Markey: Man-Made Disaster.  Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.  The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.

The hot one from the Democrats.  You can't blame the Democrats for hurrying to enact their hot-air legislation.  The public is finally paying attention, recognizing the global warming crisis for what it is, a giant scam that will cost every American plenty.  The globe isn't warming — it's actually cooling, in fact — and there's no crisis.

Climate bill targets hot tubs and light bulbs.  The Democrat-led House pressed Thursday [6/25/2009] for enough votes to pass landmark legislation that would combat global warming by forcing U.S. companies to reduce their carbon-dioxide emissions, expanding expensive renewable-energy sources and trimming consumers' choices on new light bulbs and hot tubs.  Publicly, President Obama urged passage of the legislation — one of his top priorities — even though it faces near-unanimous opposition from Republicans. ... Light bulbs, now sometimes less than a dollar, would in the future cost much more.

The cost of cap and trade

The High Cost of Cap and Trade:  Why the EPA and CBO Are Wrong.  Cap and Trade Is Wrong.
It's a Massive Energy Tax
It Will Not Make a Substantive Impact on the Environment
It Will Kill Jobs
It Will Cause Electricity Bills and Gas Prices to Sharply Increase
It Will Outsource Manufacturing Jobs and Hurt Free Trade
It Will Make You Choose among Energy, Groceries, Clothing and Haircuts
It Will Be Highly Susceptible to Fraud and Corruption
It Will Hurt Senior Citizens, the Poor, and the Unemployed the Worst
It Will Cost American Families Nearly $3,000 a Year

Cap-and-trade:  unread, undead.  The House just passed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade carbon emissions control act.  If it passes the Senate, expect the president — the bill's pusher-in-chief — to sign it at first opportunity.  I have not read the bill, so I should not comment on it at length.  But then, neither has any congressman read the now 1000-pages-and-plus wonder.  So they should not have passed it.

The Editor says...
Oh, but the president promised during his campaign to post all new legislation on line for five days before signing it.  I'm sure he'll keep that promise.  Aren't you?

Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill:  Economic Impact by Congressional District.  An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis.  Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

Waxman-Markey Flunks Math.  Yes, electricity is a good thing.  Where does it come from?  In the U.S., electricity is produced from these sources.  If you are reading this on a handheld and can't read Wikipedia's wonderful pie chart, here is the breakdown:
48.9% — Coal
20% — Natural Gas
19.3% — Nuclear
 1.6% — Petroleum
Got that?  A tick over 88% of U.S. electricity comes from three sources:  coal, gas and nuclear.

If A Tree Falls in Brazil, Why Should U.S. Taxpayers Care?  Because the Cap and Trade Bill (The Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill) has a little known provision that affects trees in Brazil and beyond.

What's the Point of Reducing Carbon Emissions?   The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) — the bill that would impose a cap and trade regime for U.S. carbon emissions — has passed the House of Representatives.  Was it worth it?  Well, on its own, ACES will in no sense make the world a cooler place.  Other nations will help themselves to more coal, like bad kids on Christmas morning.

Cap & Tax:  Nobody Read It ... Because It Doesn't Exist .  Nobody could have read the bill the House passed last night because there is no bill. ... Democrats have passed a concept — not a bill.

Cap and Trade Bill is Smoot-Hawley II.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is credited with turning a very bad recession into the Great Depression.

Cap and trade legislation: A Smoot-Hawley rerun?  Staring down the barrel of the worst economy since the 1930's, the events of the Great Depression have taken on a new found significance.  And as every school kid knows, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is one of the ways that the government made the economic situation of the time tragically much worse.

Boehner's Amazing Speech on the House Floor Friday.  Just before the House passed what could end up being the largest tax increase in U.S. history, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.) took to the floor and dissected the disgusting "American Clean Energy and Security Act" while accusing Democrats of shamefully adding 300 pages to the bill at 3 AM Friday morning.

Cap and Trade: Political Alchemy, Economy Buster and Disaster for Poor.  Cap and Trade must be defeated.  Yet there is a reason why this legislation is on the fast track.  Obama's hope is to advance this bill into law before the American people come up to speed on its dire ramifications for the country.  Cap & Trade is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered by Congress in a generation.  The onus now falls on the American people to contact their legislators in the attempt to head off a radical policy which will change the American way of life in many ways.

Cap and trade: It's an economic catastrophe.  If you have even a basic grasp of cap-and-trade policy, you're one in a million.  According to a recent Rasmussen poll, given a choice of three options, only 24 percent of voters could even identify that cap-and-trade policies had anything to do with environmental issues.  A higher number believed that it was about regulating Wall Street.  A plurality had no idea what it was at all.  Who can blame them?  It's preposterously convoluted.

Cap-and-Trade Bill: Villainy on a Grand Scale.  Energy is the most vital resource America has and we have enjoyed abundant and affordable energy for our long history.  That will all change if the Waxman-Markey bill becomes law. ... For the nearly six months since President Obama assumed office and in league with the majority Democrat Party in Congress, the actions taken to date appear to have a single purpose, the destruction of the nation's economy.

Do carbon offsets actually help the planet?  They may ease guilt, but some experts say they won't reduce global warming at all.

Sorry, But The Science Is Never 'Settled'.  President Obama has said that the science of global warming is "beyond dispute," and therefore settled.  This is the justification for the imposition of a carbon cap-and-trade system that will cost $2 trillion.  But Obama does not understand science.

Carbon trading won't stop climate change.  One day renewable energy looks like a sunrise industry, the next, tumbleweeds are blowing around a setting solar panel.  What has changed?  The price of emitting carbon dioxide.

Cap-and-Trade system aimed at cutting carbon will reward special interests, gut the economy.  Even if we could get other countries to sign on, a cap-and-trade system that works will be an economic disaster because it will raise the price of everything.  Unlike many other pollutants, carbon dioxide emissions are the product of the combustion of carbon-based energy sources such as coal, oil, wood, and natural gas.  Some 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are energy related.

Global Warming Bill Is A Job-Killer.  Democrats failed to create jobs with their unnecessary, pork-laden stimulus bill.  Now they want to kill even more of them with an equally unnecessary global warming bill.

If Cap And Trade Passes It Will Kill Off Domestic Fuel Production.  And what happens when fuel supplies go down?  Say hello to $6.00/gallon gas.  Which would be perfect, because it just so happens that the federal government owns a couple of car manufacturers that will be producing [tiny] cars that get very high gas mileage in the coming years.  Oh, and guess what?  Cap and trade would put domestic fuel producers at a competitive disadvantage with foreign fuel producers.  Meaning more dependence on foreign fuels, and fewer domestic jobs.

Cap and Trade is really Cap and Tax.  Cap and Tax as an environmentally friendly energy solution is a textbook example of good intentions gone wrong.  Not only will government-regulated caps on carbon emissions do little to nothing to lower CO2 emissions here or around the globe, but it will also be an unmitigated economic disaster.  Cap and Tax will cause the cost of energy to skyrocket, as it will just about every good or service you buy.  Cap and Tax will increase electricity rates 90 percent and gasoline prices 74 percent, after adjusting for inflation.  The average American family's energy bill will be $1,500 more every year!

Climate bill clears House in close vote.  The highly publicized Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill (H.R. 2454) cleared the House Friday afternoon [6/26/2009] by a roll call vote of 219 to 212. ... Waxman-Markey now heads to the Senate where that body's procedural rules often make closely contested bills much more difficult to pass.

Waxman's Economy Killer.  The House of Representatives will vote Friday on the so-called "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" — a.k.a the "Waxman-Markey" global warming bill.  But whatever you want to call this legislative atrocity, if enacted into law, it will go down in history as the death knell of the American standard of living and way of life.  If you hate America, this bill is for you.

Cap-and-Trade is another way of saying 2+2=5.  The sponsors of the global warming bill, which is known as Waxman-Markey, are telling Americans that not only will the legislation save us from calamitous climate change, it will also produce new jobs and new prosperity by transitioning America to new forms of "green" energy.  In other words, under Waxman-Markey, there's no trade-off necessary to save the planet; no price to be paid.  It's a win-win-win.  Right.  And 2+2=5.  The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people.  And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price.

House passes major energy-climate bill.  In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday [6/26/2009] that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.  The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats.

House rejects GOP energy alternative.  The House has rejected a Republican alternative to a Democratic climate bill.  The vote set the stage for passage of a bill that for the first time would limit U.S. greenhouse gases linked to global warming.  The GOP proposal was defeated 172-255.  The measure would have scuttled a proposed cap-and-trade system to cut greenhouse gases.

The Editor says...
There are just a few minor details left out by the Associated Press:  First, there are no "greenhouse gases linked to global warming", since there is no universal agreement about such a link.  Secondly, the statement above makes it sound as if the U.S. is the only country producing "greenhouse gases," when in fact every country in the world produces them.  The oceans produce the most influential "greenhouse gas" of them all — water vapor.  And third, the "cap and tax" bill isn't going to limit U.S. emissions — it's just going to tax them.  Except for those tiny little omissions, the Associated Press is right on target.

RINO alert!
Republicans who voted for Waxman-Markey climate bill.  The House just passed the sweeping carbon tax bill commonly known as Waxman-Markey by the thinnest of margins, 219-212.  [The eight Republicans who voted for it] are as follows:  Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle, Mark Steven Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), John McHugh (NY), Dave Reichert (Washington), Chris Smith (NJ).

Only Warming Is On The Left.  What were these RINOs thinking?  The GOP is supposed to be the party of low taxes and free markets.  Rep. Mike Castle, one of the eight offered an explanation right off of President Obama's teleprompter.

Climate Change Republicans.  The Waxman-Markey climate change bill is more about redistributing wealth from traditional energy companies to new "Green" and yes, Democrat-friendly energy companies.  President Obama is the first politician in the history of the United States that is judged not on job growth, but the unquantifiable jobs created or saved.  I guess climate change will be the same.  Yes, it is 75 degrees now, but it would be 115 had Waxman-Markey not been passed.  One cannot prove otherwise.

Cap-and-Trade:  What's Next?  The House passed a sweeping energy and global warming cap and trade bill Friday.  This bill, titled "America's Clean Energy and Security Act," or better known as Waxman-Markey, is the Democrats' answer to the worst recession in decades:  a national energy tax — a tax designed to impose economic pain through higher energy prices and lost jobs.  Or, as a recent Washington Post editorial put it, the bill "contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to the specs on hot tubs, and it will reshape America's economy in dozens of ways that many don't realize"...

Waxman-Markey subsidizes 'Shower Nazi'.  A "Shower Nazi" may be coming your way courtesy of Waxman-Markey.  Section 217 of the bill provides for a "water efficient product incentive program" that would provide rebates, vouchers, direct installs and other forms of financial assistance for the installation of water-saving products.

Democrats' Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates 'Retrofit' Policy for Homes and Businesses.  The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.  This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal "green" guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

Could Australia Blow Apart the Great Global Warming Scare?  As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade.  The story of this legislation's collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US?and to the whole global warming hysteria.

The Cap and Tax Fiction.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday [6/26/2009].  It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.  Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers.  The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Earth warming gradually, not rapidly.  An energy policy expert says the Obama administration is "upping" global-warming hysteria with the release of a 190-page report.  The report is called "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," and according to The Guardian was overseen by a San Francisco-based media consulting company in an effort to drum up support for the Waxman-Markey Energy Bill — otherwise known as cap-and-trade.  Democrats and Republicans alike have distanced themselves from the legislation because they believe it would lead to tremendous energy rate increases that could adversely affect poor people and local economies dependent on the coal industry.

He Thinks You're Stupid.  The idea that the energy tax will come to rest with "polluters" — that is to say, power companies, manufacturers, agribusinesses, and so on — is absurd.  The cost will be passed on to consumers, as Obama himself admitted during a moment of candor during the campaign, when he said that electricity costs would "skyrocket" under his cap-and-trade proposal.  Obama isn't dumb enough to believe that the many billions of dollars in costs that his proposal will impose on energy companies, etc., will somehow disappear thereafter.  But he thinks you are.

Emissions Control, Myths And Realities.  Carbon-dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels increased 0.7 percent in the United States from 2000 to 2006, far below the worldwide increase of 21.6 percent.  During the same period, emissions grew 4.9 percent in Europe, 37.6 percent in the Middle East, and 52.3 percent in Asia.  Major developing nations saw big increases; for instance, India, Malaysia and China's emissions increased 27.7 percent, 45.8 percent and 103 percent, respectively.

You can't hug the tree if you chop it down.  To contain global warming, government pressures private businesses to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.  But that pressure also encourages private companies like the utilities that generate electricity to find substitutes for the coal they currently depend on.  So, guess what many utilities here and in Europe are starting to burn?  Wood.

Watching How Hopenchange is Made:  It seems clear that, if the public knew what is in this [Waxman-Markey] bill, and how much it may cost them, they would concur with this analysis:  it is a "disaster."  But the Democrats plan to ram it through without hearings or even public availability of the relevant text.  The same legislative process that brought us trillion-dollar stimulus spending and trillion-dollar deficit budgets is about to replicate itself yet again.  Why so fast?  Aside from the obvious reasons, there is a need to make room for the next bill to be railroaded through on a fast track by a one-party Congress.

What is going on with the Cap and Trade bill?.  The bill is only available online at the House Rules Committee and is reported as "text of the bill to be introduced."  Despite having a bill, H.R. 2454, that has been reported out of the Energy & Commerce Committee and discharged by eight other committees, there is now, suddenly, a new bill that is almost 300-pages longer — but it's still being considered as H.R. 2454.

The Immorality Of Waxman-Markey: Intense Pain, No Environmental Gain.  If the pending Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill (HR 2454) becomes law, utility bills will soar.  Farm and business energy costs will skyrocket — and be passed on to consumers, or defrayed by layoffs.  Everything Americans grow, make, buy and do will be far pricier.  And bureaucrats will control our lives.  Compared to no cap-and-tax regime, Waxman-Markey would cost the United States a cumulative $9.6 trillion in real GDP losses by 2035, concludes a study by the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis.

GOP threatens ethics probe over Markey letter.  House GOP leaders and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have not "ruled out the option" of forcing a vote in the lower chamber to investigate the possible ethics violations, accusing the senior Democrat "retaliating and bullying" a witness who appeared last Tuesday before Markey's subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, where the CEO of a major energy company told members that the White House-backed cap-and-trade bill would do nothing to reduce carbon emissions while driving up energy costs.

More about Obama's thugocracy.

The 'Dependence on Foreign Oil' Canard.  As the public's enthusiasm for a major new energy tax wanes, advocates of the administration's "cap and trade" emissions proposal have found a new justification:  national security.  We should adopt a cap and trade energy tax, they say, because this will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and thus strengthen America's national security.  It is unsurprising that national security would be the last refuge of a policy that cannot be sold on its merits.

The word microcosm comes to mind...
Carbon conmen selling the sky.  Papua New Guinean landowners are being ripped off by conmen travelling village to village offering fake carbon trading deals and promising big returns from "sky money".  The crude carbon trading racket has duped at least 500 villagers since late last year around Popondetta, Oro province, on the north-west coast, an industry insider said. ... Locals pay 1110 kina ($510) for "registration as a shareholder" in a carbon trading company with promises of big dividends from the millions expected from PNG's carbon trading.

ACORN Enters the Highly Lucrative Global Warming Hysteria Business.  The radical community group, which is now facing voter registration fraud charges in Nevada, has joined forces with Al Gore and other groups for the ultimate taxpayer shakedown:  carbon emission controls.

Eight Fallacies about Global Warming:  The reality is that there is no clear evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any measurable effect on temperatures.  Such a claim rests on climate models of unproven accuracy and on lines of physical argument that expressly exclude consideration of other known important drivers of climate change. ... At its most basic, if scientists cannot be sure that temperatures are today rising, nor establish that the gentle late 20th century warming was caused by CO2 emissions, then it is nonsense to propose that expensive controls are needed on human carbon dioxide emissions.

Our Public Servants At Work.  Cap and Trade is being rushed through Congress, despite a new report showing that levels of numerous gases linked with air pollution, like carbon monoxide, have fallen off since 2001 and air quality in the U.S. has improved significantly over the last decade.  Translation:  The greenhouse gases Congress is in such a rush to regulate are at their lowest level in 19 years.

Obamamotive.  There are some fanatics that have drunk the global warming Kool-Aid and truly believe that we're going to set the Earth on fire with a car.  These people happen to be the constituents of Obama and those in Congress who are behind the cap and trade legislation.  However, those proposing this ridiculous regulation and legislation see it as a means to an end.  They use the global warming hysteria to destroy the engine of capitalism so as to usher in their socialist utopia.

Cap and trade all about appearance.  Cap and trade may happen in the US, though not as quickly as Obama would like.  A US-Canada scheme makes sense if it is going to happen, but the compromises and trade-offs required to get this law on the books will probably limit its impact on CO2 emissions.  It will become more about appearances than reality.  What it will not do is have real impact on the climate.

Cap and Trade Primer:
Eight reasons why cap and trade harms the economy and reduces jobs.  The most popular way to regulate carbon dioxide emissions is through a cap and trade program.  President Obama and many policymakers support some form of this regulatory policy. ... These proposals are very, very costly and economically damaging.  If enacted, last year's flagship cap and trade proposal, the Lieberman-Warner bill, would increase the cost of gasoline by anywhere from 60 percent to 144 percent and increase the cost of electricity by 77 to 129 percent.

Dunce Cap-and-Trade.  The mechanism for mitigation proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill is a "cap and trade" plan.  The idea is quite simple:  The government sets a fixed annual limit to total carbon-dioxide emissions and distributes ration cards for the right to emit a portion of this amount (that's the "cap"); it also allows those who receive ration cards to sell them (that's the "trade").  Now, "distributes" is an artfully chosen word:  How would the government decide who gets the ration cards?  One method is to sell them; another is to give them away, theoretically based on some objective criterion such as historical emissions, but in practice more likely based on campaign contributions.

Cap and Trade: They Said It.  [Quoting President Obama, January, 2008]:  "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket. ... Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas — you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations.  That will cost money.  They will pass that money on to consumers."

Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software.  Al Gore's venture capital firm has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation — further fueling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee during testimony in April.

Video:  Waxman Admits He Doesn't Know What's in His Cap-and-Trade Bill.

Obama:  Not The First Head Of State To Design Cars.  It's the dorks who are most obsessed with control, in whatever way they can get it.  How does Obama fit into this?  Well, did you see him riding that bike in his blue jeans during the campaign?  Obama is a dork, pure and simple — and now he's going to impose all his control games on society at large.  Meaningless control games based on rules of the dork's invention are at the very foundation of the dork existence. ... Climate change is the pretend cause, and cap-and-trade is the new game.

Winners and Losers in the Waxman-Markey Stealth Tax.  [Scroll down]  Cap and trade is also much more susceptible to simple corruption.  Precisely because it is so confusing to the general public, the stealth tax of cap and trade allows politicians to transfer wealth from consumers and hand it over to special interests in a much more disguised fashion.  Politicians have championed cap and trade, and have run from an explicit carbon tax, because they understand how much easier it will be to reward their favored constituencies with cap and trade.

Cost of cap-and-trade bill would trickle down to consumer.  President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress support federal regulation of carbon dioxide.  Proponents of CO2 regulation claim that taxing polluters is an effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but the staggering costs of a cap-and-trade program will stifle our domestic energy and manufacturing sectors and result in major rate increases for consumers.  The cap-and-trade plan should really be called "the light switch tax," because if this bill becomes law, you will pay a tax every time you flip your light switch.

Obama/Waxman Fast Track Carbon Tax.  Thanks to the efforts of grassroots citizens across the country, the bill leaves the committee weakened.  News reports indicate that Democrats in the House are still very divided.

Obama's European Energy Vacation.  [Obama has made a] proposal to institute a cap-and-trade regime to lower carbon dioxide emissions similar to the one European nations implemented earlier this decade.  However commendable the goal may be, the evidence is clear that cap-and-trade is a monumental failure.  Emissions have soared in most industrialized European nations during the plan's first phase, in most cases more than in the United States during the same period.  Moreover, cap-and-trade has led to substantial increases in electricity bills for European consumers, hindering economic growth.

Harmful Implications from Cap and Trade.  Any policy that boasts hundreds of billions in new federal revenue has to get that money from somewhere.  Under the cap and trade plan, the average American family is looking at an annual increase in energy costs of $3,100.  But for states like Montana, where more than 60% of our electricity comes from coal — it could be even more.  That's why the Montanans I've talked to are expressing more concerns about cap and trade every day.

Enron's other secret.  The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world's largest industry.  Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry, often unknowingly, through the hidden surcharges on their food bills, their gas and electricity rates, their gasoline purchases, their automobiles, their garbage collection, their insurance, their computers purchases, their hotels, their purchases of just about every good and service, in fact, and finally, their taxes to governments at all levels.

Energy bill is windfall for greedy Gore camp.  This whole theory about carbon emissions is based on bad science, and has proven to be false by many scientists.  According to a report from the United Nations, average global temperatures have decreased in the last 10 years, and carbon emissions have increased tenfold in the last 10 years.  Now that is an inconvenient truth.  So who stands to benefit with the passage of this bill?  Well, for starters there's Al Gore and his carbon trading company, environmental consultants, all the new bureaucrats that would be needed.

Cap and trade confusion.  [Scroll down]  some of the answers politicians gave under media questioning caused me to doubt whether they even understand what a cap-and-trade market is.  The Canadian Press, for example, reported McGuinty "dodged questions about whether Ontario's worst polluters — its coal-fired (power) generation plants — will be forced to bear extra costs under the system, which could be passed on to taxpayers."  Huh?  The answer to that is of course they will and of course those costs will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of higher electricity prices, unless McGuinty plans to exempt these plants from cap-and-trade, which would turn the entire exercise into a complete farce.

The cap-and-trade racket.  Who says Democrats wish to take from the poor to give to the rich?  In practice, they much prefer to take from everyone to give to their friends!  In the name of environmental protection, Democrats are readying just such a transfer on a scale that would have impressed the Pharaohs.  Tens of billions of dollars, possibly hundreds of billions, will be shifted from American consumers of electricity to shareholders of favored utility companies in primarily blue states.

Need for Speed (Read) to Pass Climate Bill.  Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee have taken a novel precaution to head off Republican efforts to slow action this week on a sweeping climate bill.  They are hiring a speed reader.

Paper Tyrants.  If Waxman does send his speed-reading assistant up to the mike to do a [John] Moschitta impersonation, the C-SPAN visual record will be YouTubed to millions.  The masses will discover that all those unintelligible words whizzing into law at lightning speed, and without sufficient debate, will kill 850,000 jobs, according to the National Association of Manufacturers.

Unpleasant surprises buried in cap and trade.  A Heritage Foundation analysis also found that Waxman-Markey is the largest, most intrusive energy-tax increase in American history.  It would reduce the nation's GDP by $7.4 trillion, and raise electricity rates 90 percent and gasoline prices 74 percent.  Apparently, the authors of this legislation were unaware that a recent poll found six out of 10 Americans oppose energy policies that raise their electricity bill by even 1 cent, much less practically double it.

Rep. Barton: Even Democrats Divided on Climate Change.  Obama seems oblivious to the potential impact [of "cap and trade"] on the economy.  "President Obama has never worked in a for-profit situation," Baryon says.  "His support groups have tended not to be the business groups that really create the jobs, and he has focused on listening to the environmental groups who really don't care too much about the cost, and they're interested in it purely from the possible negative effects on the environment.  And they think whatever the cost, we need to act, and we need to act now.  When he was a senator and when he was a candidate, he accepted that."

I presume you know that AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme will wreck U.S. economy.  [Scroll down]  The problem for such [AGW] advocates, however, is that earth's average temperatures have been declining for a decade, and a fast-growing number of climate and other scientists now question the root idea of a global warming crisis.  These critics are increasingly banding together with elected officials and other experts in the public policy arena who see cap-and-trade schemes like Waxman-Markey as fatally flawed on two counts.

Wealth destruction
Perpetual Recession.  Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey have modified their cap-and-trade global warming bill, but that's not good news.  The new legislation will increase U.S. economic losses by $2 trillion.

Waxman-Markey Cost-Benefit Analysis:  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done the first cost estimate for Waxman-Markey.  It finds that by 2020 Waxman-Markey would cause a typical U.S. household to consume about $160 less per year than it otherwise would, and about $1,100 less per year by 2050 (before any potential benefits from avoiding warming).  That doesn't sound like the end of the world, but this cost estimate is based on a number of assumptions that seem pretty unrealistic, to put it mildly.

Cap-And-Trade A No-Go Once Costs Are Factored In.  The latest IBD/TIPP Poll laid it all out in a somewhat lengthy question and drew a very different response:  By nearly 3-to-1, Americans oppose a cap-and-trade system that, if opponents are correct, could add $800 to $1,200 per household to energy prices.

Cap-and-trade showdown.  A committee chairman is threatening House leaders to either give him a role in shaping climate change legislation or risk losing every Democratic vote on his panel when the bill hits the floor.

Liberal Fantasyland.  Carbon credits (a) are costing a lot of money, (b) may do nothing to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and (c) incentivize the destruction of the environment and people's homes.  Or so the Associated Press reported.  The carbon credit system "is an excessive subsidy that represents a massive waste of developed world resources," said Stanford University's Michael Wara.

Obama's cap and trade plan "monstrously stupid".  President Obama's proposal for a cap and trade system to head off global warming would be "monstrously stupid," according to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Charlie Munger, in an interview with CNBC.  "It would be a huge shock to the economy and it wouldn't accomplish very much given the fact that the vast majority of the pollution, or rather the CO2, is coming from a place like China."

Cap and trade amounts to a tax, Chaffetz says.  A cap and trade proposal supported by President Barack Obama would increase electricity bills in the Beehive State by $1,115 per capita, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Friday at the Utah Taxpayers Association's annual conference.  Chaffetz obtained the information from an analysis created for Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, and he described the increase as a tax on businesses and regular folks.

Obama's 'Cap and Trade' Plan Likely Will Raise Energy Prices.  President Barack Obama's "cap and trade" plan is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contribute to global warming.  Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told that to attain that reduction, it is "likely true" that energy costs for Americans will go up.

Cap and Trade a 'Declaration of War,' Say Republicans.  In general, under cap and trade, the amount of carbon that energy producers emit is capped.  They can exceed that cap through the purchase, i.e., "trade," of carbon permits.  The money for those permits would be collected by the government and presumably redistributed under a system still being crafted.  "The reality is the cap-and-trade legislation offered by the Democrats amounts to an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals on Capitol Hill," Chairman of the House Republican Conference Mike Pence (R-Ind.) told

Solar Scenarios.  The end of the world has always been a popular theme for various religions and for doomsayers in general. ... The latest version, of course, is Al Gore's prediction that the Earth is on fire from "global warming" and we have to buy his carbon credits to avoid it.  Even President Obama is preaching this absurd, baseless nonsense in order to drum up votes in Congress for his economy-killing "cap-and-trade" scheme to tax all energy use.

Cap and trade bill shouldn't pass.  The public is being conned by Congress and special interest groups advocating global warming.  Many individuals identified with these groups have a financial interest in companies that will benefit greatly once we have the so called Cap and Trade passed into law.  This bill, like prior spending bills passed by this Congress, could not pass if the public knew the specific details contained within them.

Deadly Duo of Obama-Gore Deceit on Cap and Trade.  Obama presents Cap and Trade as essential to stopping global warming by reducing atmospheric CO2.  It won't because it allows people to produce the same amount or more by buying the privilege and passing the cost to the consumer.  It also requires ignoring the scientific evidence that CO2 is not causing warming.

Environmentalists Say 'Cap-and-Trade' Is Designed to Drive up Energy Costs.  President Obama's "cap and trade" plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is specifically designed to drive up energy prices and redistribute wealth, according to a coalition of environmental, union, and liberal activist groups that is pushing for Congress to enact the proposal this year.

Inhofe:  Cap and Trade Will Cost U.S. 800,000 Jobs.  Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe tells Newsmax that the Obama administration's plans to curb carbon emissions would immediately cost the U.S. 800,000 jobs and actually lead to a net increase in worldwide emissions.  Sen. Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, also said an Environmental Protection Agency proposal would raise taxes by $400 billion a year — and charged that Obama is "gutting" the military.

EPA concedes it analyzed bill it 'hadn't even read yet'.  EPA administrator Lisa Jackson was forced to admit she had not even read the Waxman-Markey carbon taxing bill before her agency released a report claiming the economic impact of cap and trade legislation would be "modest."  Asked how the EPA could produce a report on a bill they hadn't even read yet, Jacson said:  "We had to make assumptions."

Cap-And-Trade:  Al Gore's Cash Cow.  At the cap-and-trade hearings, it was revealed that not everyone will suffer from this growth-killing energy tax.  A congresswoman wanted to know why sea levels aren't rising but Gore's bank account is.  When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million.  A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million.  It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.

Obama Cap-and-Trade Plan Still Forming.  Retreating somewhat from promises made during Barack Obama's presidential campaign, the White House announced on April 8 that the administration might agree to postpone auctioning off 100-percent of emissions allowances under a cap-and-trade system proposed to limit so-called greenhouse gas pollution.

Trying to Turn CO2 Into Au.  Remember when we thought many ancients to be laughable for believing that lead could be transmuted into gold?  Well, today's government-funded scientists, backed by biased media and dilettantish politicians, have surpassed the alchemists:  these modern sorcerers would have us believe that an odorless, colorless gas that makes plants grow, which has been exhaled by human beings in the respiration process since time immemorial, is literally killing Mother Earth and that getting rid of the gas will ensure wealth.

Obama proposals cap growth.  I recently predicted that President Obama's cap-and-trade energy taxes would be the first casualty of his ambitious legislative agenda.  A bipartisan group of Senate Democrats and Republicans drove the first nail into its coffin by adding an amendment to the pending budget resolution.  The amendment will deny carbon-emissions-tax supporters the use of a fast-track budget reconciliation rule to limit debate and pass their tax scheme by a simple majority, skirting the tougher 60-vote hurdle to end debate and quickly move to consideration of the measure.

Cap and Trade:  A Huge, Regressive Tax.  In today's society, where "global warming" is a term that pops up in conversation and print almost daily, the cap-and-trade scheme may appear to many to be a cost-efficient way to help forestall an environmental crisis of legendary proportions.  However, upon closer examination, both the economic and environmental arguments used to justify cap and trade are found to be based on specious evidence.

Energy Bill, Energy Tax, or Government Hand-Out?.  The 648-page energy bill just penned by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey is ostensibly designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money.  But conservatives contend that the bill is nothing more than a tax, adding costs to energy producers and distributors for unproven methods of greenhouse gas emissions.  These costs would be passed on to consumers to the tune of $3,900 per year, per household.

Darkness Descends Over Environmental Coup d'état.  The cadre now occupying Washington has staked itself out to inflict "green" energy alternatives by a sleight-of-hand labeled "cap and trade."

Senate makes it harder to pass global warming bill.  The Senate is making it tougher to pass the cap-and-trade legislation President Barack Obama wants as part of an effort to reduce global warming. ... Republicans and Democrats are wary of Obama's proposal to allow the government to auction permits to companies to emit greenhouse gases, with the costs of the permits being passed on to consumers.

Growing Cap-and-Trade on the Tax Farm.  While the president's stated objective is indeed worthy and in fact critical to the future of the nation, unfortunately, as a means to achieve it, a carbon cap-and-trade system is a complete non sequitur.  The cap-and-trade mechanism is primarily a method of constricting electricity production.  The United States only gets 3% of its electricity from oil.  Thus taxing electricity will do nothing to free us from dependence on foreign petroleum.

Don't Let Cap-and-Trade Become Tax-and-Spend.  A cap-and-trade tax hike is the worst kind of tax increase, because the tax increase is hidden behind a complex regulatory apparatus that only adds to the cost.

Lost jobs, big hikes in your bills — that's cap-and-trade.  President Obama has repeatedly said he will not raise taxes on low- and middle-income families, yet his policies do not match his rhetoric.  Take for instance, a new tax he has proposed on the use of energy.  It's called cap-and-trade or, more appropriately, cap-and-tax.  The tax would require energy producers and businesses to pay to emit carbon emissions in the hope of reducing greenhouse gases.

Cap and trade looks like a bad deal for Michigan.  Those who support cap and trade believe that by instituting such a program we can stop manmade global warming, but they never seem to share the costs of the scheme with the American people. ... I believe cap and trade would further devastate Michigan's economy because we are so dependent on coal generation for electricity and manufacturing for our jobs.

Cap and Tax Collapse.  Please pass Al Gore a Valium — and better make it a double — because his cap-and-trade dreams just took a dive in the U.S. Senate.  In a vote late Wednesday [4/1/2009], no fewer than 26 Democrats joined all 41 Republicans to insist that any new cap and tax on carbon energy would require at least 60 votes.

Cap and Trade Legislation Would Kill Coal Industry, Congressman Says.  Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said cap and trade systems would be devastating to coal manufacturing states like Illinois and West Virginia and proposed cap and trade legislation could kill the entire coal mining industry.  "This cap-and-trade scheme may not just reduce Illinois coal jobs further — it is my worry that this legislation aims to kill the entire coal industry," Shimkus told

Dems Failure to Fast Track Cap-And-Trade a Terrific Omen.  [Scroll down]  You see, as recently as Tuesday [3/31/2009] it appeared the climate-hysterics might succeed in attaching their dreadful stealth national sales tax scheme to the budget resolution by employing a sneaky little trick called the reconciliation process.  But yesterday's passage of an amendment put forth by freshman Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb) forces the green ideologues to muster 60 votes instead of a simple majority to pass their inane plan.

A tax by any other name.  Many Americans find the debate in Washington over adopting a "cap and trade" program to reduce carbon dioxide a bit confusing.  That's understandable.  Put simply, it's a tax on energy consumption.  In fact, it would be a huge tax.  If enacted, cap-and-trade will be one of the government's largest revenue sources within the next decade.

Obama and Your Electric Bill:  President Obama's energy tax plan — a version of the failed European "cap and trade" global warming fiasco — may cost families $1,800 yearly in higher utility bills, far exceeding his promised $800 a year tax cut for 95% of Americans.  While campaigning, Obama admitted that his energy plan would cause electric bills to "skyrocket."  Few took note, perhaps because Sen. John McCain also backed some form of a "cap-and-trade" energy tax.

White House Admits Cap-And-Trade Tax Costs Triple Their Official Estimate.  I've already explained here on the Forum how the cap-and-trade energy tax works, and would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the country.  Now, amazingly, the White House is telling something closer to the truth about this tax hike, admitting that the official budget estimate of $646 billion over 8 years — already a mighty steep price to pay — is far, far lower than the real cost.

Feds Play Down Carbon Cap-and-Trade.  Recent statements and actions of Obama administration officials have some observers wondering whether the president may be backing away from campaign promises to impose a cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gases.

Cap and Trade War.  One of President Obama's applause lines is that his climate tax policies will create new green jobs "that can't be outsourced."  But if that's true, why is his main energy adviser floating a new carbon tariff on imports?  Welcome to the coming cap and trade war.

Lovin' the Earth Hour bonfire.  How much of your money are you willing to spend to help China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia and over 100 other developing nations, lower their greenhouse gas emissions, while you're also paying through the nose (see cap-and-trade, "green" taxes, etc.) to lower — or, given the way this stuff actually "works" in the real world — not to lower, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

The Economic Contradictions of Obama-ism.  While billed as a program to reduce greenhouse gases, cap-and-trade is, inescapably, a tax on virtually all economic activity, as fossil fuels are an input in nearly all economic outputs.  Even a lawyer, after all, has to use electricity to have the lights on in his office and power his computer.  And electricity is mostly generated by fossil fuels, especially coal, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide.  This will be no small tax.  The Obama budget estimates that the carbon tax will bring in revenues of $78.7 billion in 2012.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it might net as much as $300 billion.

Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress.  In 2000 and 2001, while Barack Obama served as a board member for a Chicago-based charitable foundation, he helped to fund a pioneering carbon trading exchange that is likely to fill a critical role in the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme that President Obama is now trying to push rapidly through Congress.

Kerry, Boxer:  U.S. 'Needs' Cap-and-Trade on Carbon Emissions Even if Energy Costs Rise.  Democratic Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer told that the nation must adopt the Obama administration's cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions, even if it results in massive increases in gasoline and electricity prices.

It's a duck.  There's no need for a "Top 10 Things to Call the Global Warming Tax."  It's a global warming tax.  It's just a very expensive one, 4-5 times as expensive as simply taxing emissions, according to center-left economist William Pizer of Resources for the Future.  But that expense added to an already regressive energy tax is ok, you see, because "cap-and-[whatever]" isn't transparent, but hidden in the form of Soviet-style production quotas.

Hint:  They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign.
Who Pays for Cap and Trade?  Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions.  With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups.

Carbon credit markets waiting on Obama's move.  The past 12 months have been a roller-coaster ride for the carbon credit market, from a $1.90 price per credit to $7.40 and back to $1.60.  The market's advocates are hoping the installment of a new presidential administration brings one more upswing.

Cap-and-trade:  Obama's 'economic dagger'.  Prospects for passage of President Barack Obama's cap-and-trade solution for global warming have become decidedly chillier since the idea was first proposed in 2002.  Obama wants to cut CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2050.  He's got his work cut out for him.  Not only are hundreds of credible climate scientists now publicly debunking former vice-president Al Gore's claims of apocalyptic environmental disaster, a new Gallup poll reveals that 41 percent of Americans believe such alarms are "exaggerated."

Five Ways that Insanity Has Become the New Normal in America:  The earth has been getting warmer and colder since it was formed, the planet has been considerably warmer in the past than it is today, and the earth is currently cooling, not warming.  Yet and still, our President intends to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a Cap and Trade scheme that will spike energy costs into the stratosphere so that we can solve this non-existent "problem."

Eight Democrats oppose quick debate on global warming bill.  Eight Senate Democrats are opposing speedy action on President Barack Obama's bill to combat global warming, complicating prospects for the legislation and creating problems for their party's leaders.  The eight Democrats disapprove of using the annual budget debate to pass Obama's "cap and trade" bill to fight greenhouse gas emissions, a measure that divides lawmakers, environmentalists and businesses.

Barack Obama faces 'revolution' if he imposes tough carbon targets, warns IPCC.  Barack Obama faces a "revolution" if he imposes emission cuts on the US similar to those set in Europe, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has conceded.  But Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nation's body tasked with leading the fight against climate change, also questioned the value of a new global climate deal without such a US pledge.  He said political constraints such as creating new jobs made it impossible for the new president to announce the measures that scientists believe are necessary.

The Climate Change Lobby Has Regrets.  Jim Rogers is not happy with the Obama administration.  Ever since the White House unveiled its costly climate program, the CEO of Duke Energy has been arguing the proposals amount to nothing more than a tax.  Indeed.

Reducing carbon footprint is a 'waste of time'.  The millions of well-intentioned Australians turning off light bulbs, installing insulation in their ceilings and solar panels on their roofs, cycling to work or buying low-emission cars are wasting time and money.  Commentators from both sides of the climate debate have criticised the emissions trading scheme proposed by the [Australian] federal Government as being ineffectual.  Under the scheme, the more individuals save on their emissions the more corporate polluters such as coal stations and aluminium smelters are allowed to emit.

Carbon Tax:  The Lesser Of Two Evils.  Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, long reviled by environmentalists for his skepticism of extreme global warming claims, now supports a tax on C02 emissions.  A new convert to the cause?  We doubt it.

The Inept Politics of the US Cap and Trade Plan:  The obvious first step is to remove the false urgency of a potential EPA rulemaking, by clarifying for the Supreme Court and the agency that the Clean Air Act as written is actually not intended as a vehicle to regulate greenhouse gases.  It's quick, clean and would allow Congress to consider what would possibly be the most expensive course ever charted at least with deliberation.

You betcha, drill and mine.  Yesterday [11/1/2008], a ten month old audio clip and video of Sen. Barack Obama in front of an editorial board in San Fransisco made its way onto the internet, thanks largely in part to the Illinois senator's comments about coal.  "What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there," Obama said in a Jan. 17 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.

China dams reveal flaws in climate-change weapon.  The hydroelectric dam, a low wall of concrete slicing across an old farming valley, is supposed to help a power company in distant Germany contribute to saving the climate — while putting lucrative "carbon credits" into the pockets of Chinese developers.  But in the end the new Xiaoxi dam may do nothing to lower global-warming emissions as advertised.  And many of the 7,500 people displaced by the project still seethe over losing their homes and farmland.

Are climate change investors living in a fool's paradise?  It looks on the surface like an investment and legislative dream come true, combining the public's desire to 'save the planet' and compensate for recent stock market losses with helping corporations fulfill their 'corporate social responsibilities'. ... On closer examination however, one notices something remarkable.  Practically without exception, all of these organizations, many of them among the most successful and respected in the world, completely ignore the risk that the very foundation of all of these activities might be shown to be faulty.

In the Tank for Kyoto, Inc.  Pay no attention to the ceramic facilities in Spain shutting down because it was more profitable to go into the business of making nothing — and just selling their CO2 ration coupons.  Nothing to see here; move along.  Those EU politicians and executives pleading for a carbon-cap cessation — or, at a minimum, that Europe stop digging?  You don't hear that, either.

Carbon Offsets:  Eco-Extortion, Green Guilt, and the Selling of Indulgences.  The selling of "voluntary carbon offsets" — eco-indulgences — is a $55 million per year industry, involving over three dozen companies worldwide.  Total sales are anticipated to double both this year and next, and entrepreneurs are clamoring all over themselves for a piece of the action.  And it's all a scam.  Yes, the money is very real, but the alleged benefits to the environment are fake.

Green market risk:  To the layers of confusion that now exist in our financial markets we are about to add another, as opaque and volatile as the others, and as unhinged from the real world — a carbon currency.  President-elect Barack Obama wants it, Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants it and their European counterparts, to some extent, already have it.  Europe's Emissions Trading System (ETS) is the world's largest trading exchange for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  If ambitious Kyoto-style plans come to fruition, ETS will morph to account for, among other things, the carbon content of all industrial and biological processes, and the carbon carrying capacity of all the real estate on our planet.  Because carbon is a building block of life, and because we live in a carbon-based planet, carbon prices will become more ubiquitous than the U.S. dollar.  It would become, in effect, a globally traded currency tied to gaseous commodities that until recently were nowhere traded.

Cap this foolish enviro plan.  Regular readers will know I have been warning about what a disaster Europe's three-year-old cap-and-trade carbon market, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), has been.  It has led to skyrocketing electricity prices for consumers, undeserved profits for giant companies and failed to reduce GHG emissions.  Despite this, Canadian politicians are seldom challenged on their naive, almost child-like advocacy of cap-and-trade.

Carbon quacks:  Our politicians ask us to believe humanity is facing Armageddon from man-made global warming.  That is, imminent, world-wide, climate catastrophe that will scorch the Earth, kill and displace hundreds of millions of people, drown cities and cause massive starvation and disease.  And what's their solution?  It's to impose another tax on us or create another stock market, which is all a "cap and trade" system is.

Gore the Vandal:  So far as Al Gore and his fellow global warming charlatans are concerned, the reduction of energy, whether it be electricity to power our homes and businesses or oil to fuel our cars and trucks, must be curtailed and then replaced with "clean" alternatives such as wind and solar power, and biofuels.  Meanwhile, Gore grows wealthy giving speeches and collecting money for "carbon credits", the modern equivalent of Confederate currency.

A Wonderful, Magical Green Bailout.  Much has been said and written in recent days about how "The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property."  The current financial situation is surely no different.  What is striking is how brazen are the attempts we are seeing to attach pet schemes to the bailout's coattails.

Carbon credits' dirty secret.  At the bottom of the house of sand on which the Kyoto accord and world carbon trading markets are built, there's a leaking foundation.  Otherwise known as a carbon credit.  A carbon credit is a permit or, alternatively, a unit of currency, allowing a country or corporation to emit one metric tonne of carbon dioxide, linked to man-made global warming.  Carbon credits are the main mechanism by which Kyoto transfers wealth from developed nations like Canada to developing ones like China.

Ontario launches three carbon offset projects.  Ontario farmers are being recruited for carbon offset testing as the province prepares to participate in a cap-and-trade system, which officials say is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.  Three pilot projects will be launched this summer to test the feasibility of ways that farmers and others can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in exchange for obtaining carbon credits.

Kyoto's Long Goodbye.  The irony is that Kyoto has handed [developing countries] every reason not to participate.  Europe knew all along that it couldn't meet its quotas, so it created an out in "offsets."  A British factory, say, buys a credit to pay for basic efficiency improvements in a Chinese coal plant, like installing smokestack scrubbers.  This is a tax on the Brits to make Chinese industries more competitive.  Sweet deal if you can get it.

Climate mafia has us fooled.  Vested interests have hijacked the climate debate, and taken Australia's future hostage.  The ransom they demand?  Simple agreement or, at the very least, compliance.  Voices of dissent face derision.  Legitimate questions are met with ridicule.  But with many of the squabbling forces of power in this country now apparently united in their enthusiasm for an emissions trading scheme, it is more important than ever that we go back and examine the basis of their campaigns.

Climate mettle about to be tested.  An emissions trading scheme has not even started but the Government's hostility to carbon emissions is already choking off the supply of electricity, leading to an inevitable rise in prices.  Coal is used to generate 90 percent of Australia's electricity, but no business can fund new coal-fired power plants under the existing policy settings.

Beware green zealots.  Nowhere is the fanatic's touch more apparent than in the confused notion of an emissions reduction budget, the idea that there is a fixed quantum of emissions reduction we should achieve by a given date, with the result that if we reduce a bit less in one area, we will have to reduce by more elsewhere.

Power plants in danger from emission tradings scheme.  Four out of five power stations in Victoria's Latrobe Valley, both coal-fired power stations in South Australia and several generators in NSW and Queensland could close down under an emissions trading regime designed to meet even a modest greenhouse reduction target.  New modelling for the electricity industry finds that Australia could achieve cuts of 10 or 20 percent in its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with 2000 levels — but only after a massive upheaval in the energy sector.

The great carbon offset con:  Flying, walking, eating, sleeping?  pretty much everything we do seems to add carbon to our footprints.  And just as once industrious priests used to sell absolutions to erase our sins, some clever clogs have hit on the idea of charging us for exuding CO2.  They called it Carbon Offsetting and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

ClimateGate and the "Green Dragon":  With the ClimateGate revelations of flimsy "science" behind the man-made global warming theory, the role of the religious left in promoting this fraudulent scheme now deserves serious media scrutiny.

Cap and Burn:  After [GOP Senator Bob] Corker called the bill "the mother of all earmarks" and "a huge unnecessary transference of wealth," Ms. Boxer was reduced to arguing that it's really "a huge tax cut for the American people" and "will not increase gas prices."  These are delusions, or worse.  Cap and trade is designed to raise energy prices, which are supposed to spur the investments and behavior changes needed for a less carbon-intensive economy.

Your Carbon Ration Card.  While American politicians mull a carbon cap-and-trade system for industry, our British cousins are already contemplating the next step:  personal CO2 rations.  A Parliamentary committee in May proposed giving all British adults "carbon allowances" that they would be required to spend — along with, you know, real money — when buying gasoline, airline tickets, electricity or natural gas.

Cap-and-Trade = Cap-and-Tax.  The Senate is debating a cap-and-trade proposal, which would decrease carbon-based fuel emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas by making them illegal:  These fuels currently provide about 85 percent of U.S. energy needs and generate most greenhouse gases.  Companies could emit greenhouse gases only if they had annual "allowances" — quotas — issued by the government, which would gradually decline; that's the "cap."

Faster than a speeding ballot — it's Super Obama.  An emissions trading scheme is what you get when you leave important economic decisions up to scientists who think they're economists and economists who think they're scientists.  It's a vision of paradise that only makes sense on a cosine-loaded blackboard.  Ask any proponent of an emissions trading scheme to explain why it's such a great idea.  Thirty minutes later you'll know how it felt in the '70s to be lectured on the wonders of socialism by some elbow-patched academic beardo.

Let's Just Call It 'Cap and Tax'.  Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax.  It would directly regulate economic activity, but it is promoted as a "free market" mechanism.  Finally, cap-and-trade would quickly become a bonanza for lobbyists, who would scramble to exploit the system for different industries, venture capitalists, localities and others.  All the influence peddling would undermine the system's abstract advantages.

Climate is right for another swindle.  How does Washington plan to resolve our energy problems and control atmospheric temperatures?  Well, how do they fix anything?  By proposing a gargantuan boondoggle.  A "cap and trade" bill, one that will supposedly cut 66 percent of our emissions by 2050, is being debated in Congress this week.  To begin with, proponents of America's Climate Security Act have been misleading the public by claiming that cap and trade is a "market-based" solution.  In truth, cap and trade does to the market what "American Idol" does to music.

Cap and Spend.  As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade."  This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend.  This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

Washington's Unpopular War on Energy:  With energy prices already skyrocketing, federal lawmakers wreaked more havoc by trying to pass heavy-handed regulatory legislation known simply as "cap and trade."  The legislation would impose stringent emission limits on energy and manufacturing industries.  At the same time, many environmentalists admit that the legislation would have little to no impact on climate change.  However, the bill would greatly increase hidden taxes and costs on consumers.  The poor and middle class would be hardest hit.

Going Green = $4 per Gallon.  [Scroll down]  Global warming has been the most convenient threat upon which all of the rhetoric has been based.  What it is really leading to is the creation of a new economy based on trading carbon credits.  Such policy is really nothing more than a massive redistribution of the wealth scheme designed to force industrial nations to make deals with less developed ones to trade for energy credits and get around severe energy use restrictions.  It's what Al Gore trades in order to allow him to claim he has a "zero carbon footprint" — even as he flies around the world in his jets and pays $2000 electric bills on his Tennessee mansion.

Carbon pain is priceless.  Kevin Rudd has a plan to cut your emissions that won't work, will hurt and isn't needed.  In fact, if the Prime Minister has any sense, he'll check the soaring prices for oil and coal and say his painful plan has been tried on you already, and has failed, failed, failed.

Rudd's carbon scheme chokes.  Co-founder of Access Economics Geoff Carmody warns that Australia's emissions trading model cannot work, that it is misconceived and that it will damage Australia's economy with almost no prospect of solving the global problem.  In an alternative climate change policy document provided to The Australian, Carmody warns that as the Rudd Government's model becomes apparent, "expect the strength of the adverse reaction to multiply".

The Global Warming Bubble:  After all the magazine covers, celebrity sermonizing and U.N.-certified-expert hand-wringing, the fight against global warming got a real-world test in the U.S. Senate a few weeks ago in the debate over a proposal to limit carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system.  After a small dose of the argument, supporters of the proposal couldn't wait to drop it.

What's Green and Goes Pop?  The housing bubble has burst only a decade or so after the Internet and tech-stock bubble.  So we may not need to wait all that long to see the next one.  And the most likely candidate is a green bubble, fueled by climate-change alarmism and government subsidies.

Simply UN-bearable:  Carbon trading is a modern religious exercise similar to the medieval practise of selling indulgences. … We pay somebody — a nation or say, Al Gore's company — money and they give us permission to drive our SUV or fly to the Amazon as an eco-tourist.  The UN's involved?  Trust me.  Somebody's gonna get real rich and they're going to laugh at us all the way to the bank — which is either in Geneva or the Cayman Islands — and the natural environment won't see anything in the way of improvement.

Personal Carbon Credits:  The Trick.  Everybody from the Prince of Wales to liberal newspapers and former Labour ministers now compares climate change to the war.  Baroness Young of Old Scone, head of the Environment Agency, says this is "World War Three".  If it's not breaking the Official Secrets Act, could somebody explain what on earth they are on about?  The notion of a "war on carbon" makes even less sense than the glorious "wars" on terror/drugs/crime/whatever.  No, these evocations of the past appear political rather than practical.

Billions wasted on UN climate programme.  Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.  Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify.  The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made….

Carbon's Power Brokers:  An unprecedentedly radical government grab for control of the American economy will be debated this week when the Senate considers saving the planet by means of a cap-and-trade system to ration carbon emissions. … "Cap-and-trade" comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but government actually would create a scarcity so that government could sell what it had made scarce.

The great carbon bazaar:  Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation.  The credits are generated by a United Nations-run scheme called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).  The mechanism gives firms in developing countries financial incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions.  But in some cases, carbon credits are paid to projects that would have been realised without external funding.

They're Launching America's First Carbon Cap-And-Trade Program Today?  While England met its Kyoto goals by 1998, emissions levels began to rise the very next year.  And 2005's were the highest since the country signed the treaty in 1997.  This reality has many environmental groups, including Greenpeace, fighting hard to force further hardships upon the already suffering country.  We revolted against misdirected British tax policies back in 1773.  Are we really about to follow them into the green abyss?

Carbon Capper Capers:  [Scroll down]  Each of these complaints was prompted by the same thing:  Europe's "cap-and-trade" scheme of rationing carbon dioxide emissions, in the name of global warming.  Over just three years of operation, this plan has already driven European industry offshore and cost even universities and hospitals massive sums.

The hole in Kyoto's 'cap'.  In reality, there is no "cap", either in the Kyoto accord or the "cap-and-trade" markets and carbon taxes it has spawned.  In addition, while politicians like to pretend it's easy to create a cap-and-trade market or institute a carbon tax, nothing could be further from the truth.

Wile E. Coyote can't fix climate.  Wile E. Coyote is proof of the wise old saying that a good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. … The same image came to mind when I heard NDP Leader Jack Layton yesterday praising a "cap and trade" system for pricing carbon, even though Europe's three-year-old cap and trade system, known as the Emissions Trading Scheme, has become a playground for market speculators and hedge funds, while leading to skyrocketing electricity prices and doing next to nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Just plain nuts!
Park hands out acorns so guests are carbon neutral.  Recipients of a South Lakes holiday park-themed calendar have been treated to a special eco-friendly gift.  Bosses at Skelwith Fold Caravan Park in Ambleside sent customers a 2009 day planner complete with the seasonal present of an acorn.  They hope each visitor will plant their complimentary nut and that hundreds of oak trees will be grown.

Coal-Cap Disaster.  By pulling the plug on half of our current electricity production, cap-and-trade will risk a massive undermining of the American economy, as well as our future economic and national security.  The coal story is so important simply because the U.S. has massively undeveloped coal resources.  With 27 percent of the world's coal reserves estimated at 270 billion tons, the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal.  And yet cap-and-trade would destroy this critical sector.

Carbon Folly:  CO2 Emissions Sources and Options.  The UN demands that the US cut its CO2 emissions by 80%.  Congress is debating Cap and Trade legislation that will require the U.S. to cut its CO2 emissions by up to 80%.  But few are asking, is it possible to cut CO2 emissions by 80%?  Or by any meaningful amount?

Hand over your money!  "We are saving you from yourself".  Carbon taxes are the latest example of a punitive sin tax.  They are imposed to punish those who break the rules of environmentalism; the new religion.  They are designed to reduce the amount of CO2 humans put in the atmosphere because we're told it is causing climate change.  It is not and it is unlikely to reduce consumption.  All they do is anger taxpayers and are justifiably labeled another tax grab.  While CO2 is not a problem the government believe it is and they have wasted billions convincing us it is, so they're unlikely to admit error.

Climate Reality Bites.  For the most part, the politicians favor cap and trade because it is an indirect tax.  A direct tax — say, on gasoline — would be far more transparent, but it would also be unpopular. … The other reason politicians like cap and trade is because it gives them a cut of the action and the ability to pick winners and losers.  Some of the allowances would be given away, at least at the start, while the rest would be auctioned off, with the share of auctions increasing over time.  This is a giant revenue grab.

The Great Cap-And-Trade Scam:  The adage, however, is "follow the money" and here's where we find the greatest supporters of cap-and-trade emissions credits.  Huge financial firms such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are betting they can make billions through government mandated programs in which vast amounts of money move back and forth through "climate exchanges" where companies trade their alleged emissions reduction activities for credits, i.e., real cash.

Carbon Costs:  Is It Easy Being Green?  Rental cars are now coming with more than just that new car smell.  For only $1.25 extra, some come with carbon offsets, too.  Enterprise Rent-A-Car, along with its sister companies Alamo and National, recently launched its Keys to Green program, which asks customers to pay a little extra to help offset emissions created by its gas-guzzling fleets. … So just where does the money go?

Cap-And-Trade Folly:  Legislation pending in the Senate might warm environmentalists' hearts, but not because of potential cuts in carbon emissions.  Their interest is in the heavy economic costs the plans would inflict. … It's no surprise that the most expensive of the three is the Warner-Lieberman bill.  The Environmental Protection Agency reckons it could cost as much as $3 trillion a year in lost GDP.  In an economy of roughly $14 trillion, that's a significant loss.

Global Warming Tax Grab:  The Cap-And-Trade proposal would be a huge boon to politicians.  Companies that exceeded their caps could buy credits from companies that had extra.  Commissions would be established. $$  Some politician's cohort would benefit from running that department. $$  Some cohort would be charged with establishing the cap limits.  And of course they would need offices and staff. $$

Cap and Trade Would Stifle Economy, Delay Transition to Cleaner Fuels.  With Congress determined to regulate energy use and perhaps impose caps or taxes on carbon dioxide emissions, the consequences of these actions deserve more scrutiny than they have received.  Much of today's debate is driven by rhetoric asserting a climate catastrophe is certain and the United States is sitting on the sidelines.  Neither claim is true.

A Primer on the Economics of Carbon Taxes and Cap-and-Trade Systems.  The trading of carbon credits is troublesome.  It presumes an underlying database of emissions from millions of individual sources and a continuous monitoring of changes to the database.  This would be a huge increase in regulation, and it flies in the face of experience with other deregulations.  Markets are substitutes for regulation, not complements.

Follow the money.  [Scroll down] During a Monday afternoon [3/3/2008] political session, the founder of explained GE's double-dipping ability to manufacture and sell windmills while receiving government subsidies for doing so.  And how, under proposed cap-and-trade plans, companies like Alcoa and DOW will be eligible for retroactive carbon credits for emission abatements they've accomplished in the past.  Oh, and who do you suppose owns the exchange where these carbon credits will be traded?  Can you spell Goldman Sachs?

Weather Channel Founder:  Sue Al Gore for Fraud.  The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.  John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.  "Is he committing financial fraud?  That is the question," Coleman said.

$100 billion in carbon futures coming soon.  A futures market in carbon emissions trading could be worth several hundred billion dollars, ASX emerging markets general manager Anthony Collins says.  Mr Collins said the Australian Securities Exchange could be ready to launch a futures market for carbon emission permits "within weeks" of the federal Government passing the enabling legislation, expected late next year.

Pelosi's Green House:  Carbon offsets are scams that allow gluttonous energy consumers like Gore to ease their conscience while doing absolutely nothing to curb their own energy use.  You buy a carbon offset, giving money to people who will do something like plant trees in Zimbabwe, which supposedly will reduce or absorb carbon emissions by an equivalent amount.  You are then declared "carbon-neutral" while you continue to pollute.

The Carbon Footprint of the Rich is Twice That of the Poor.  Rich, well-educated Australians are contributing twice as much to climate change as average households, according to new analysis of consumption habits.

The inconvenient truth about the carbon offset industry:  In the concluding part of a major investigation, Nick Davies shows how greenhouse gas credits do little or nothing to combat global warming.

BS alert!  BS alert!  If idiot celebrities jetting around the world claiming they are "carbon neutral" because they buy carbon offsets understood the Kyoto Accord, they wouldn't bother, considering what hypocrites they already are.  That's because Kyoto doesn't count GHG emissions caused by flying, although it's one of the world's fastest-growing sources of GHG.

True cost of carbon cuts:  Here is one scenario.  The first step would be a market-determined carbon price, most likely through selling emissions permits to business.  Economists say the carbon price would need to be about $30 a tonne to have an immediate impact.  This would double electricity bills, with the rising cost spilling over into consumer goods.  Fuel prices would jump significantly.

Museum Taps Into Global Warming Guilt.  Chicago's Field Museum, appealing to worries over global warming, is giving its visitors the opportunity to offset the carbon emissions they generate by traveling to the museum.  As a way to help Americans shrink the size, or footprint, of their carbon emissions, the museum says it will sell "carbon emissions offset credits" for $1.

Is carbon-offsetting just eco-enslavement?  The details of this carbon-offsetting scheme are disturbing.  Cameron offsets his flights by donating to Climate Care.  The latest wheeze of this carbon-offsetting company is to provide "treadle pumps" to poor rural families in India so that they can get water on to their land without having to use polluting diesel power. … These pumps were abolished in British prisons a century ago.

Is carbon offsetting the best way to ease your conscience?  Climate Care's latest enterprise is to provide "treadle pumps" to poor rural families so they can get water on to their land without using diesel power.  The pumps are worked by stepping on pedals.  If a peasant treads for two hours a day, it will take at least three years to offset the CO2 from Mr Cameron's return flight to India.

Can you buy a greener conscience?  The Oscar-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth" touted itself as the world's first carbon-neutral documentary.  The producers said that every ounce of carbon emitted during production — from jet travel, electricity for filming and gasoline for cars and trucks — was counterbalanced by reducing emissions somewhere else in the world.  It only made sense that a film about the perils of global warming wouldn't contribute to the problem. … It was a ridiculously good deal with one problem:  So far, it has not led to any additional emissions reductions.

Gore's message is more than hot air.  For a man who has just picked up an Oscar for a documentary on global warming, Al Gore is collecting an embarrassing number of Air Miles.  Today he addresses the annual conference of the National Association of Pension Funds in Edinburgh.  Yesterday he was in Copenhagen, speaking to a sell-out conference on the booming market in emissions trading.

Carbon credits don't grow on trees.  People who pay to have trees planted on their behalf to clean up greenhouse gas pollution cannot be sure they will get what they pay for, according to research that shows the so-called carbon offset market is vulnerable to profiteering and lacks credibility.

California's CO2 Blame Game Vs. Automakers.  California's attorney general should be an outspoken opponent of frivolous lawsuits, not the state's leading proponent of such litigation.  Yet, Jerry Brown continues to pursue the big six automakers, alleging that CO2 vehicle emissions from their products constitute a "public nuisance."

Carbon trade puts industries at risk.  The biggest element missing from the public debate on using emissions trading to cut Australia's greenhouse gases is the impact on energy-intensive industries — which use a third of the electricity produced nationally and employ 1.1 million people.

Do trees make it OK to drive an SUV?  If you plant some trees, is it OK to drive an Escalade?  The question isn't as silly as it sounds.  People worried about global warming increasingly are trying to "offset" the carbon dioxide — the leading greenhouse gas — they spew into the atmosphere when they drive, fly or flick on a light.  One idea popular with the eco-conscious is to have trees planted for them.  You get to keep driving and flying, but those trees are supposed to suck in your trail of carbon.

[Please note:  Water vapor — not carbon dioxide — is the "leading" greenhouse gas.]

Carbon 'black market' emerges.  Australia's largest companies are buying carbon credits outside the boundaries of existing government schemes, creating a "behind the scenes" market in emissions trading, Minter Ellison senior associate Scott Singleton will tell the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference in Adelaide today [4/17/2007].

Klobuchar bill would establish national greenhouse gas registry.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who made the environment a key issue in her Senate campaign last year, proposed a national registry of greenhouse gas emissions Monday as part of an attempt to help reduce such emissions.  Klobuchar's legislation, which she dubbed a "carbon counter," would help track greenhouse gases as a prelude to legislative efforts to limit emissions through a cap-and-trade or other approach.

High cost of carbon plan:  Australians can expect steep increases in the price of power and petrol as the nation prepares for carbon trading within as little as four years.

Voluntary = Mandatory :  While the carbon trading scheme that Bush proposed Thursday [2/15/2002] might start out voluntary, there isn't a serious person inside the beltway who believes it could stay that way over the long run if it were to be implemented.

Cutting carbon:  When you donate money to build a new windfarm, you don't take any of the old, polluting power offline; you increase the supply of power, reducing the price until others are encouraged to buy more carbon-emitting power.  On the margin, it may make some difference, since demand for electricity is not perfectly elastic, but nowhere near the one-for-one equivalence that carbon offsets would seem to suggest.

Creators of carbon credit scheme are cashing in on it.  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.

Don't copy Gore's carbon credits use.  A rich, conscience-afflicted guy buys carbon credits from his profiteering broker, who takes his commission and pays a polluter somewhere in Musialstan to cut his pollution output in an amount equal to whatever the party of the first part needs to relieve his conscience.  You tell me just how this is going to reduce global warming.  The first guilty party is too rich to be bothered with altering his lifestyle — or too busy, being important, famous, powerful or inspirational, like Al Gore.

The Carbon Folly:  Policymakers have settled on 'emissions trading' as their favorite global-warming fix.  But it isn't working.

Welcome aboard, dupes.  A number of companies are now offering consumers carbon offset options.  Delta Airlines, for example, is taking advantage of the celebrity cachet of carbon offsets to offer them for a fee to passengers who want to mimic the private jetsters Gore and Heinz-Kerry Kerry at a price even a peasant can afford. … Promoting this program may be shrewd advertising but buying carbon offsets is generally stupid.

Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy.  Sure, you can pretend you're offsetting Western greenhouse pollution by supposedly cleaning up a dirty coal plant in China.  But China is adding a new coal plant every week.  You could build a particularly dirty "uncapped" power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution.  The result?  The polluter gets very rich.  The planet continues to cook.  And the Gores of the world can feel virtuous as they burn up the local power grid.

Senate Hearing on State, Regional, and Local Perspectives on Global Warming.  Since Kyoto is the only cap and trade program that is under way, it's worth asking — how well is that program working?  Of the 15 original EU countries, only two will meet their targets — Sweden and Britain, and Britain only because it eliminated its coal industry in the early 90s.  And like most signatories, Canada and Japan won't meet their targets either.

How Gore's massive energy consumption saves the world.  Al [Gore] buys his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.," that, for a fee, will invest your money in "high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns."  Generation is a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3.  And who's the chairman and founding partner?  Al Gore.  So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself.

Zoning rules thwart Gore's solar dreams.  Zoning rules in Al Gore's upscale Tennessee neighborhood have prevented the former vice president and environmental activist from installing solar panels on his roof.  Gore bought his multimillion dollar home in 2002 in Belle Meade, an exclusive city encircled by metropolitan Nashville, and he has embarked on an ambitious renovation.  But his contractors ran into a legal barrier last summer when they sought to apply for a permit to install solar panels on the roof.

Edwards Claims His Mega-Mansion is Carbon Neutral.  Call it "Dancing with the Stars":  Global Warming Edition.  Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards showed his best dance moves trying to avoid questions about how energy efficient his 28,000-square-foot mansion really is and how much the power bill costs each month.

Volcano 'building up energy'.  Indonesia's deadly Mount Kelud billowed thick smoke on Monday [11/05/2007] amid signs of major eruption, while another volcano nearby sent clouds of ash raining down on towns and villages.

The Editor says...
All the "carbon credits" in the world won't offset this eruption, if and when it happens.

You could be in debt to carbon loansharks for life.  Global warming, blah blah blah, greenhouse gases, blah blah blah, no more patio heaters for you, Johnny Middle Classes.  The plan so far is that every still-not-citizen of this country would be issued with carbon rationing cards, much like supermarket loyalty cards, from which points would be deducted for every carbon-bearing purchase.

Architect of Denver's Global Warming Plan Seeks to Benefit Financially.  Multi-billion firm, CH2M HILL, is a major donor of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.

EU Carbon Market Crashes.  The European emissions trading scheme (ETS), launched with great fanfare last year, has been a rollercoaster, with prices of permits reaching record highs of more than €30 per ton before collapsing to below €9 on May 12.  The idea seemed wonderful in theory — a "market-based" way to reduce emissions — but in practice it has proven chaotic.

Killing Jobs to Save the Climate.  The price of European emission permits is rising so rapidly that German companies are threatening to leave the country.  Thousands of jobs could be lost. And the environment may, in the end, be no better off.

Carbon-Offset Cowboys Let Their Grass Grow.  Last year Sun Ranch became the first ranch in the U.S. to cash in on a program that pays rangeland owners to help fight global warming.  The ranch received a $30,000 check for the carbon dioxide its grasslands have been absorbing from the air.

The Editor says...
It sounds like this rancher is being paid to watch the grass grow.  But if I stop mowing the grass in my yard, I'll get fined by the city.

Obama's Grand Experiment: Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Policy.  The prospect that President-elect Barack Obama may keep the Bush tax cuts until 2011 has some clinging to hope he will postpone his liberal ideas for the economy's sake.  There's little chance of that when it comes to global warming, however, an issue on which Obama puts his ideology first and the nation's economic growth second.

Obama's Cap on Carbon Pollution Is A Huge Tax Increase, Republican Lawmaker Says.  In his speech to Congress Tuesday night, President Barack Obama "committed himself to the largest annual tax increase in the history of America," warns a Republican congressman.  The implementation of a cap-and-trade system, something Obama favors, would raise $300- to $330-billion a year, said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Carbon Trading to Raise Consumer Energy Prices.  The cost of energy for consumers would be driven higher in President Barack Obama's proposed budget by a carbon cap-and-trade system that is projected to raise about $80 billion a year starting in 2012. ... The budget assumes a starting price of $20 per ton for carbon emissions, an amount that Mr. Obama's aides says is conservative and would likely rise.

Presidential Bait-and-Switch.  Mr. Obama pledged "no tax hikes on any families earning less than a quarter million dollars."  What he didn't draw attention to was $600 billion in higher energy taxes he wants to impose through a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions.  These taxes will hit everyone who drives, flips a light switch, or buys anything manufactured, grown or shipped.

Cap and Trade:  Wall Street's Latest Scheme.  One sector is immune from the economic downturn:  global warming lobbyists. ... It can be assumed that this lobbying bonanza will only increase in scope since President Obama, in his February 24 speech to Congress, asked for "...legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."

Much more material about carbon dioxide can be found on the page about Greenhouse Gases and the Kyoto Protocol.

Nothing on this page shall be construed as an attempt to influence any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or any political party.

Back to the Global Warming Intro Page
Jump to the Kyoto Protocol
Jump to the Greenhouse Gases Section
Back to the Home page

Document location
Updated July 17, 2024.

 Entire contents Copyright 2024 by Andrew K. Dart