Cap and Trade, Climate Change The Next Big Bill

Why don’t we start with the obvious? We do need to develop and implement alternative energy. We are going to run out of oil sooner or later. We need to be energy independent. Oil and coal are pollutants, we all need and want clean air and water, we all want a clean environment. Can we all agree on this premise?
Having said that, lets look at the cap & trade solution. In an interview in the Wall Street Journal, dated August of 2009, Thomas Crocker, the architect of cap & trade, stated: “I’m skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon,” says Mr. Crocker, 73 years old, a retired economist in Centennial, Wyo. He says he prefers an outright tax on emissions because it would be easier to enforce and provide needed flexibility to deal with the problem.” Mr. Crocker further states, cap-and-trade is better suited for problems where the damages are clear — like acid rain in the 1990s — and a hard limit is needed quickly.(read the entire article at, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125011380094927137.html), He clearly states that cap & trade is not the “cure all for everything”. He continues with a descriptive narrative of why.
I wonder what you would find if you followed the money, who stands to benefit from cap & trade. I invite you to visit California SkyWatch.com at, http://californiaskywatch.com/documents/htmldocs/pp_cap_and_trade_part_1.htm. and read Rosalind Peterson’s blog. Ms. Peterson is an environmental activist and is an interesting read. Ms. Peterson writes, “why wasn’t Gore out in public, speaking, and working toward pollution reduction during the eight years he was Vice-President of the United States? Now he is almost completely ignoring the EPA in order to promote a money market scheme, which he calls “The Carbon Exchange Market.” He expects that everyone, including large, special interest corporations, will automatically pledge to reduce emissions and that these emissions will be automatically “…converted into tradable credits…If participants reduce their emissions below their target, they can sell their carbon credits on the exchange for a profit…if they fail to reduce their emissions, they must buy credits from others…” Why aren’t their calls for rules, regulations, and penalties for non-performance instead?
Thus, it appears that Gore and other corporations intend to make money through this type of investment scheme. There is just one problem. This scheme appears to globalize pollution through trading, buying, and selling. The end result is that polluters will continue to pollute and buy from a long list of those who have real or fake pollution credits to sell. It is a great idea for those special corporate interests that established this money making market scheme because they will make fantastic profits…but it does not regulate or reduce the pollution that is responsible for climate change and the polluting of our air, rivers, and streams. And it will not make a significant reduction in the pollutants that are causing declining human health, a rise in childhood asthma, and other respiratory problems.
The “cap and trade” plan has other huge drawbacks. It fails to finance the technology that will help industry and all of us to reduce pollution. The American people are being sold a bill of goods that isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. What we fail to grasp is a “crisis” has been generated in order to get us to buy into enormous money market schemes called “caps and trades,” questionable experimental geo-engineering schemes, experimental weather modification programs, and a questionable plan for carbon sequestration.
Richard Drury, Communities for a Better Environment’s Board President, put it this way in a 2006 article: “Prior to pollution trading programs, there was no “right” to pollute at all…However, to allow companies to buy and sell the “right” to pollute, it was necessary for the first time to create a new property right in pollution itself. The new “right” to pollute jeopardizes the public’s right to govern its own environment, reversing hundreds of years of common law and good government…” We at Yes-23.com find that statement extremely telling don’t you?
If we look at who else benefits dollar wise what would we see? It’s not just Al Gore of course but many others. If we follow the money to the United Nations we would see many countries with their hands out looking to grab United States taxpayer dollars. We all know the UN membership wants America to prosper and succeed don’t we?
The following link: “Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report” will take you to the US Senate Minority report showing over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report)  from around the globe challenging man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
Many cap and trade supporters believe that the IPCC is the authority on climate change and the scientific date provide by them is irrefutable and absolute. What I have found in my research is that the IPCC is not wholly a scientific body. It selects who and what scientific experts and peer reviews it uses in it’s reports. Many of the scientists associated with the IPCC have resigned and asked their names be removed from the reports and some have had to sue to have their names removed. I also have found that the so-call “hacked” emails from leading scientist show that the data has been manipulated because they cannot account for the cooling trends of the last decade or so. I have also seen that NASA will not release it’s data to a freedom of information request to prove it’s position on climate change. I will not argue these points because I am trying to make the point that there is enough doubt about this subject that we need to stop any cap and trade legislation. We need to focus on developing alternative energy which will solve the pollution problem.
Why do we insist on trying something that is failing miserably in Europe? They have had to modify or abandon their efforts with cap and trade. They have demonstrated no discernible reduction in their carbon output because of their implementation of their cap and trade policies and the carbon credit fluctuations in the market have been causing chaos within that market.
To all the environmentalists out there I would say, you cannot have it both ways. You want the green energy but you don’t want to build the infrastructure to support it because it might effect some critter or plant in a negative way. It seems to me that your position is unsupportable and I wonder how you will like losing the modern conveniences your enjoy.
I don’t know about you, but I enjoy a warm or cool home, I enjoy have a light source, I enjoy driving my car and watching the boob tube.
Finally I am including a video produced by the Cascade Policy Institute. It is a counter to Al Gores movie and includes commentary by folks from the Heritage Foundation and many others including President Obama telling us that, clearly our electric bills will increase substantially.

Climate Chains from Climate Chains on Vimeo.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Nuke power?
• Glen Beck Shows Schedule
• Unbiased News?
• Pick Your Reason For Why You Vote Democrat
• Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Crazy Times