Green World Trust

[reasonmclucus]

Remember Enron, the corrupt firm whose failure should have disproved the myth "too big to fail", but didn't? At the time it was the seventh largest corporation. It's bankruptcy was the largest in history until Lehman Brothers failed. Incidentally, Lehman Brothers was also involved in carbon trading.
http://www.chron.com/news/specials/enron/

Enron owed part of its early success to emissions trading. Basically emissions trading was established as a way for some companies to profit from pollution while allowing some companies to continue to produce the chemicals that can cause acid rain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, is reporting that Enron played a major role in pushing the global warming scam, including establishing the Kyoto Protocals.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/29/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx

Enron had already profited from trading sulfur dioxide credits and saw the potential for even greater profits from trading what would become known as "carbon credits".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

The article is the first in a series of articles about those who seek to profit from what Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls "the greatest scam in history."

Solomon states, " 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..." which increases the costs of various goods and services.

Enron was an early player beginning early in the administration of Bill Clinton to push for a carbon dioxide trading system. Enron also sought support from environmental groups.
"Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while [Chairman Kenneth] Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide."

According to Solomon, "Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried."

Enron advised the Clinton administration what to do at the Kyoto Japan Conference in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

To improve its chances for success Enron hired former Environmental Protection Agency regulator John Palmisano to become the company's lead lobbyist as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance. Palismano wrote a memo describing the historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto.

“If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States,” Polisano began. “The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”

The memo, entitled “Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired,” summarized the achievements that Enron had accomplished. “I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of this agreement,” he wrote. He cited three issues of specific importance to Enron in the climate-change debate: the rules governing emissions trading, the rules governing transfers of emission reduction rights between countries, and the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy fund.

Polisano’s memo expressed satisfaction bordering on amazement at Enron’s successes. The rules governing transfers of emission rights “is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won. The clean development fund will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again we won .... The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.”

“Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized),” Polisano explained.

Those who believe in Global Warming like to claim that they are opposed by corporate interests in the form of the energy companies. They neglect to mention that the battle isn't against corporations, it is between different groups of corporations. The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return.

Democrats often criticize Republicans for being too close to business. Democrats are just as close to business. They simply favor different businesses.

As William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, puts it: "The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street's exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading."
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/04/13/next-bernie-madoff-emissions-cap-and-trade-aids-the-corrupt-hurts-the-little-guy.html
_________________
There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors - J. Robert Oppenheimer

[PAWB]

Dear Reasonmclucus,

A very interesting bit of history. Have you thought of putting these ideas down in a simple narrative and sending them to Christopher Booker at the Telegraph? The story would need good verification, but if correct, I'm sure he would be very interested and could get good coverage for it.
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England

[reasonmclucus]

[Questioning_Climate]

The oil companies (majors at least) have recognised that there is profit to be made from AGW paranoia in just the same way as any other industry.  Without going into details, here are a few bullet points which summarises some of the issues:
 
1. It is seen as good PR to placate both the public and shareholders to fly the green banner.  No surprise there!
2. Most majors have a portfolio of energy subsidiaries including electricity generation, refining, distribution, etc.  Shell has recently shed much of its renewable holding, only retaining the biofuel section.
3. To capture carbon dioxide and sequester it uses energy.  Estimates are often around 30% extra.  So there we have 30% profit immediately.
4. The reservoirs where it is to be sequestered are essentially owned by these companies.  They will charge for injection and storage.  This will no doubt be some kind of arrangement requiring an on-going rental with additional costs for monitoring.
5. Licensing of the technology for CO2 separation and sequestration will raise funds.  Essentially this is oilfield technology and no doubt well patented.
6. In some cases the CO2 could be used to aid the flow of oil from the reservoir thereby reducing the costs of extraction. 
7. Gas and oil are generally found together. Natural gas contains CO2 in small concentrations, but typically much higher than atmospheric levels ,  http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp. When CO2 is used to aid extraction it may return to the surface in the gas/oil and will not be readily discernable from the natural so will most likely be ignored.
8. Estimates of leakage appear to be about 1% per year.  Therefore it can only be regarded as a delaying action, not a permanent fix.  Thus, even if it did work and had a benefit, the oil companies have a perpetual motion machine to milk.
9. There is a large and very lucrative industry supporting the oil companies and they are all gearing up to ride the AGW bandwagon too.  Probably the largest is Schlumberger.  You will get the idea from this link:  http://www.slb.com/content/careers/working/global/climate.asp
10. High oil prices are good for oil companies, but politically not so. However, it is largely politics and futures speculation that keep the price of oil high. Reducing the amount going to market increases the price, as is the case with any commodity. Here are a couple of examples:
i. Supply controls by the likes of OPEC.
ii. Restrictions on drilling/exploration, often as a result of environmental concerns.
iii. Instability in the Middle East.
11. High prices increase investment in technology and exploration which leads to more production and lowers price. Oil companies strive for a balance but politics and market forcing tend to cause cyclic variations.
 
 
There are probably other points that I have missed, but I think the list gives an idea of the scale and reasons why Big Oil is not complaining too loudly.
_________________
"Correlation is NOT Causation"

[reasonmclucus]

If astrophysicists are correct about the sun's output declining in the near future, the energy companies only have to wait for global cooling to occur. The result will be that environmentalists will be thoroughly discredited and they can get environmental laws eliminated.
_________________
There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors - J. Robert Oppenheimer

[sunsettommy]

[ddddyyyy]

This forum is very good, I like, I agree with that point of view above,I support you!



Nothing in the world is difficult for one who sets his mind to it.










Nike shox Breitling watches Dunk sb Swiss replica watches wedding dress wedding dresses

[adb]

AGW is such blatant nonsense that I've always felt that the driving force must be profit. The obvious candidates are the nuclear industry; researchers of almost any kind; the "alternative" power industry; and financial market.

One area that will suffer is the environment. AGW is a massive distraction from real environmental issues that are often politically hard to handle. By contrast, AGW is perfect for politicians ... just add a new tax and the stupid masses are happy !

[blouis79]

[eric144]

Here is my page of links which charts the history of the corporate takeover of global warming promotion by carbon trading interests. It includes the full Enron story and links both Gore and IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri to the oil industry.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm

[eric144]

[DexSmart]

The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return.

[MykTaylor]

The real story about enhanded levels of atmospheric CO2 l

Addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is beneficial to plant life. At enhanced levels of atmospheric CO2 plants grow faster and stronger, are more resistant to disease and pollution, and are more drought tolerant.

A book has recently been published titled 'The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment' by Idso & Idso. Each of the 55 example given is backed by many references to peer reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals.
_________________
Your degree of certainty is a measure of your ignorance

[perseus]

Yes and so do the weeds, moreover they often do better in the changed climatic conditions which will result from increased CO2.

In other words it's far more complex than more CO2 means more plant growth. You also have to consider the changed moisture in the soil, sunlight, the type of plant and competition, as well as a range of other factors.
_________________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991

[Climate Sense]

If you look at the Vostock ice core data- you will see that CO2 follows temperature, it does not drive temperature- and plants- such as crops that feed us NEED CO2.

CO2 IS the green gas, the most environmentally friendly thing one could do is produce MORE CO2, not less. Nature is already blooming from the CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere.