So why in little more than a decade after the global cooling scare of the mid-1970s was the IPCC certain about human-induced global warming?
In 2004 the United Nations University – World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), published a study into possible scenarios for implementing a global tax. It states: “How can we find an extra US$50 billion for development funding? Our focus is on flows of resources from high-income to developing countries… Any foreseeable global tax will be introduced, not by a unitary world government, but as the result of concerted action by nation states… The taxation of environmental externalities is an obvious potential source of revenue. … Does this mean that the global tax should be levied at the same rate on all countries? To the extent that emissions impose environmental damage wherever they occur, the corrective tax should be the same. However, this needs to be moderated to take account of the unequal distribution of world income. Considerations of global justice point to poor countries bearing less of the cost burden, and may justify the tax being levied only on high-income or middle-income countries.” [Ref.26]
This really presents the UN’s view: Unsound science is used by the IPCC to foster “concerted action by nation states” in order to tax CO2 emissions (excluding low-income countries in consideration of “global justice”) and transfer that money to poor countries. They are not actually concerned about the CO2 – just the money: “We are presupposing that the tax is indeed levied on individuals and firms in the form of a carbon levy… Suppose, however, that we have subsidiarity, where the burden on national governments is determined by their carbon emissions, but the national governments are free to decide how to raise the revenue. As noted above, they may for political or other reasons choose another taxbase.”
Another UNU-WIDER publication states: “Support for an international ‘carbon tax’ has been growing since the 1992 UN Earth Summit focused international attention on the damage to the environment caused by excessive use of fossil fuels worldwide. … Over 20 per cent of the tax yields would originate in the US … Distributionally the tax will be regressive, since fuel bills typically form a disproportionately larger portion of the budget of low-income groups as compared to high-income groups.“ So although the only actual carbon-based “damage to the environment” so far is due to deforestation for charcoal and subsistence farming in poor countries, the US will be the major payer, and the American poor will be the worst off as a result.
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) [Ref.27] bills itself as “the world’s first and North America’s only voluntary, legally binding integrated greenhouse gas emissions reduction, registry and trading system. … The founder, Chairman and CEO of CCX is economist and financial innovator Dr. Richard L. Sandor, who was named a Hero of the Planet by Time Magazine in 2002 for founding CCX, and in 2007 as the “father of carbon trading.” CCX and the European Climate Exchange (ECX), now the leading exchange operating in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme are owned by Climate Exchange Plc, a publicly traded company listed on the AIM of the London Stock Exchange.
CCX directors include Maurice Strong (who is now capitalizing on his UN work to establish a carbon tax), as well as Stuart Eizenstat, who “has held a number of key positions at senior levels in the U.S. Government. During the Clinton Administration he served as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union (1993-1996), Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade (1996-97); Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (1997-99), … [he] was also Chief Domestic Policy Adviser and Executive Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff for President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Ambassador Eizenstat played a prominent role in the development of key international initiatives, including and the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, where he led the US delegation.”
CCX external advisors include Strong’s cohort Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who is “a former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Before joining UNEP, Ms. Dowdeswell was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada. In that capacity she played a leading role in global efforts to negotiate the treaty on climate change adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. She was Canada’s permanent representative to the World Meteorological Organization, principal delegate to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. The connection to the UN goes back to the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit, when Climate Exchange delivered a paper on the “feasibility of a market-based solution to global warming”. [Ref.31]
For more information on CCX and other companies benefiting from the global warming scam, see www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CarbonMonetization.htm.
Follow the money – the creators of the phony global warming scare stories have done so for a very lucrative purpose.
In 2007 the World Resources Institute received a $750,000 dollar two-year grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) to “demonstrate the need for a mandatory federal greenhouse gas registry that is consistent with global greenhouse gas accounting standards. Such a registry will provide the foundation for measuring and tracking major emission sources and will be the basis for a federal cap-and-trade program”. According to Joan Spero, president of DDCF “In the immediate term, one of the most important things we can do to combat the threat of climate change is to design and implement the best possible pricing policies for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases”. This is part of DDCF’s $100 million Climate Change Initiative [Ref.30].
In 1990, the United States Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act, which required the administration to report annually on funding for climate change science. According to a 2005 General Accounting Office report [Ref.28], “Federal climate change funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004“. The following table is from that report (NOAA is within the Dept. of Commerce).
The federally run U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) coordinates the scientific activities of some 13 federal government agencies and departments [Ref.29]: “Over roughly the past 15 years, the United States has invested heavily in scientific research, monitoring, data management, and assessment for climate change analyses to build a foundation of knowledge for decision making. To date, more than $20 billion of research funding has been provided by U.S. agencies and departments.”
Also in 1990, the Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on the quantity of pollutants the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program. This cap and trade exchange of NOx and SO2 emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise. It was the forerunner of today’s CO2 trading, now taken up by CCX. Enron was a promoter of the Kyoto Protocol since it would increase their profits. Enron’s Ken Lay had meetings with Clinton and Gore to try to get Kyoto promoted: “Enron officials later expressed elation at the results of the Kyoto conference. An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”” [See Ref.34]
At the turn of the 21st century, “California experienced rolling power blackouts, moth-balled power plants that lacked nitrous oxide controls were brought back online, and their owners scrambled for nitrous emission permits for those plants and paid up to 10-fold increases for allowances. … Enron was gaming California’s power market to drive power prices sky high and in turn prices for emissions permits.” [Ref.33]. Will this type of situation happen again with CO2 ?
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has introduced a measure for government oversight as part of the CO2 trading. She said: “This landmark legislation will not only significantly reduce our nation’s carbon footprint, it will also generate tremendous economic potential. In fact, new carbon markets – with annual values of approximately $300 billion – are expected to emerge once Congress establishes a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.” [Ref.32]
The Blood and Gore team (Generation Investment Management, with chairman Al Gore and managing partner David Blood – a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management) has purchased almost ten percent of Camco Group [Ref. 35], which, according to the Camco website: “works closely with major companies worldwide, establishing partnerships to turn our clients’ climate change liabilities into economic, social and environmental assets.” Camco Group states: “We generate carbon credits by partnering with companies to identify, develop and manage projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Camco then arranges the sale and delivery of carbon credits to international compliance buyers and into the voluntary market.” The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) selected Camco as the Official Carbon Advisor for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, to be held August in Denver “As the Official Carbon Advisor, Camco will work with the DNCC to estimate the Convention’s carbon footprint”.
So who will win in this battle to monetize the carbon? While science was killed as an innocent bystander, the UN with its desire for funding via international taxation vies with exchange corporations who want a piece of the new $300 billion market. (See also: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CarbonMonetization.htm)