It's a connect the dots "climate change" moment: Insurance companies love charging higher premiums - to justify those higher premiums, Big Insurance needs the IPCC to increase the hysteria about extreme weather events
The insurance industry stands to make billions, if not trillions, on achieving higher policy premiums by pushing the exaggerated fears and hysteria of extreme climate change. For one to understand what is going on, just simply connect the dots...to accomplish this pursuit of greed, Munich Re has realized that it's easier to do so if one buys a seat at the IPCC's "climate science" table.
"You’ve got to wonder when scientists like Stefan Rahmstorf work hand in hand with the reinsurance industry, writing doomsday reports that help fatten the bottom line. Hartmut Grassl, a climate alarmist, is also connected to Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer...points out how the Munich Re has at least two more agents at the IPCC. Working Group II AR5 Writing Teams, Chapter 10 — Key economic sectors and services, Eberhard Faust, Munich Reinsurance Company and an excerpt from a report from Dr Sandra Schuster, meteorologist with Munich Re, Sydney, who has just been appointed as a Lead Author (WG2) for IPCC AR5...It’s a real scam when the insurance industry buys up science and pays the science institutes and scientists to spread fear among its customers..."
Connect the dots climate change - big insurance is strictly motivated by greed and their official involvement simply corrupts any "findings" the next IPCC report promulgates regarding climate change impacts.
Previous postings on corruption of science by corporate concerns.
It's a connect the dots "climate change" moment: The ever self-righteous green organizations, such as the WWF, are being paid by 'Big Wind' companies for less than charitable reasons - obviously, what's best for the environment is no longer the primary mission for most greens
Read here. If true, it's another confirmation that big green is on the payroll of special interest groups that happen to spoil nature, harm the environment and cause climate change.
As more and more local communities do battle with the wind firms in order to save their environment, they are being back stabbed by the paragons of "green," all in the name of a greener green - the money in their coffers.
And it's not just the WWF.
"It has apparently also been revealed that Friends of the Earth Scotland are supported by Scottish Power Renewables, while the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland is also in the pay of big wind."
Connect the dots climate change has more importantly become the sleazeball issue of 'follow the money' - not the talked about issue of global warming or climate change (severe weather) events. Green groups, such as the WWF, are compromised by greed and not to be trusted to protect either nature or the environment
Read here. The Tesla electric car is produced by a company run by a whiny corporate billionaire and taxpayer welfare mooch - to the tune of $450 million in U.S. taxpayer loans provided by Obama. What did Obama see in the company? Great question, and btw, don't expect the loan to be repaid, ever.
Tesla introduced their EV Roadster back in 2008 with much fanfare but in 2011 announced they would quit producing it - lackluster sales did the car in. And now the Roadster owners are finding out that if the car is parked too long the batteries go dead, for good.
The batteries represent about one-fifth the EV's sticker price, which comes out to approximately $40,000.00. Ouch!
"DON'T leave your electric car parked for too long - by the time you get back it could have turned into a $200,000 brick. Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "bricks" that could not be re-charged...Electric car maker Tesla is defending claims its cars become immobilised if the battery ever becomes completely discharged. This results in a battery replacement cost of about one-fifth the car's $206,000 sticker price...Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "BRICKS" that could not be re-charged."
Unfortunately, Tesla's electric car advanatges, known as batteries, are not the only expensive ones on the market. To replace battereis in any of the current EV's on the market is incredibly expensive, especially if they frequently catch fire. The good news? When it's time for resale or trade-in, the wealthy owners of these vehicles will receive just karma for leeching off the average taxpayer.
Read here. The rash of Volt fires during early 2012 put the kibosh on sales of the electric 4-wheel barbeques, but during March 2012 they became red-hot (ooops) again. March sales figures were...ahem...'on fire' as each Chevy dealer sold at least three-quarters of a Volt each for the entire month...hot damn!
That March sales figure represents a huuuge 277% increase over the previous month sales figure! That translates to Volt sales taking a giant leap of...well...er...from 0.27 Volts per dealer to that red-hot figure of 0.76 volts per dealer. Woooweee....now we're cookin with gas batteries!
This 'Government Motors' (Uncle Sam owns 26% of GM) electric vehicle sales fiasco has been a overdone turkey for the taxpayer since Day 1. But for the wealthy who purchase this rolling $40,000+ Weber grill, they get subsidized by all the rest of us to the tune of $7,500, which Obama now wants increased to $10,000, per wealthy consumer. OMG, thank you Obamamama.
Now that is some really ugly Volt arithmetic for the average person to swallow, but wait.....it gets worse:
"The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle...GM has estimated they’ve sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized."
Conclusion: The electric car advantages are real for Obama's cronies and really, really ugly for taxpayers. We are paying Government Motors between $50,000-$250,000 per Volt that GM sells for $41,000.00. Damn that car is hot!
Read here. Wikileaks, the organization dedicated to exposing the dark underbelly of big government, has published documents regarding the UN's climate program known as the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM). In essence, the program has been an abject failure bordering on flagrant corruption.
"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says."
Obviously, the CDM program had two principal functions, neither of which concerned a better environment. The first was to enhance the investment profitability of wealthy "green" investors; the second being a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of advanced countries to countries incapable of producing their own prosperity without some form of subsidized theft.
The entire climate change endeavor sponsored by the United Nations is essentially a gigantic fraud, propelled by leftists and greens dedicated to no growth, no prosperity policies. The actual quotes from "elites" who support the UN's "green" policies confirms everything that Wikileaks is now discovering.
Read here. Producing the gigantic amounts of biofuel crops planned for the future will require the accelerated growth of dangerous chemicals and pesticides use across even pristine non-agricultural areas. To maximize yield and profit potential for wealthy biofuel investors, such as Al Gore and George Soros, modern industrialized agriculture demands the utilization of these hazardous, very toxic substances.
Peer reviewed research is documenting a future of significant environmental degradation as a direct result of the anti-fossil fuel, pro biofuel campaign - a campaign led by a collaboration of faux-green wealthy individuals and "sustainable" crony capitalists. Essentially, the "greens" will destroy the planet to save it.
"...the two researchers note that industrialized agriculture "is one of the most important drivers of environmental degradation worldwide," reporting that it "has caused large-scale contamination of soil, water and biota, through the extensive use of agro-chemicals, including pesticides and soil amendment products such as fertilizers." And they report that "there is increasing concern that micropollution -- characterized by low-level, multi-compound exposure -- may suffice to elicit critical, potentially hazardous effects on environmental and human health..."the hazards imposed by all 784 pesticides currently registered for use on biofuel crops in Brazil," and in doing so, they say they detected compounds that have been "suspended by international conventions," as well as compounds that are included in databases and lists of priority concern that are "highly toxic in acute exposure, neurotoxic, probable or known carcinogens, known groundwater contaminants, and/or of known reproductive or developmental toxicity,"...suggest that these chemicals will soon be employed "at increased rates, or for the first time, across large expanses of agro-industrially converted pastures and native (i.e., pristine) habitat in the cerrado (tropical savanna) and Amazonian rainforest biomes," which ecosystems will undoubtedly see great pressures exerted on the vast array of indigenous species of plants and animals that reside within them, perhaps driving many of them to extinction..." [Luis Schiesari, Britta Grillitsch 2011: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment]
Read here. Biofuels produced from palm oil trees, rapeseed and soybeans produce more greenhouse emissions than petroleum diesel fuel. Why? When all the cradle-to-grave factors are assessed for fuel types, including indirect and direct land use, crop/plantation agriculture production, material processing and manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal and/or recycling, the total greenhouse emissions (not just CO2) for these type of biofuels exceed equivalent crude oil derivatives.
Unfortunately, politicians and policymakers worldwide foolishly provided incentives to wealthy investors (Soros, Gore and etc.) for a quick, large increase of biofuel production without waiting for the necessary scientific due diligence the public would naturally expect. As a result, global greenhouse emissions have not only increased needlessly because of this stupidity by elites, but invaluable, irreplaceable, pristine tropical forests were destroyed to make room for growing the gas emitting biofuel crops.
"The University of Amsterdam researcher reports that with respect to obtaining palm oil from trees planted on recently deforested soil in Southeast Asia, soybean oil from crops planted on recently deforested soil in Brazil, and rapeseed oil from crops planted on existing arable soil in Europe, it has been found that "the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the life cycle of the oils considered are larger than the corresponding emissions associated with conventional fossil fuel-based diesel."...And he further reminds us that when there is a rapid expansion of oil crop production on existing arable soils, much of the shortfall in food and feed production "has to be met by expansion of agricultural land elsewhere,".....also notes that in the case of palm oil, the time required to pay back the subsequent "carbon debt" is probably on the order of 60-100 years "when oil palms are cultivated on mineral soils after recent deforestation and on the order of more than one century to over nine centuries, when the oil palms are cultivated on peat." And when soybeans are cultivated for oil on recently deforested land, he says that "the carbon payback time is in excess of 300 years."" [Lucas Reijnders 2011: Renewable Energy]
Read here. As has been written before, using crops to feed cars instead of mouths is an unmitigated disaster for multiple reasons. The only explanation that the biofuels industry survives is the Obama Democrats need to enrich its billionaire supporters and its big business friends in the agriculture sector.
Study after study has documented the complete waste that the biofuels effort represents, with the latest by Bryan et al., again providing the proof that only taxpayer funded subsidies keep this unconscionable renewable energy effort afloat.
"...as they [researchers] describe it, "assessed the potential benefits, costs, and trade-offs associated with biofuels agriculture to inform bioenergy policy.".....The three Australian researchers report finding that "biofuels agriculture was more profitable over an extensive area of the most productive arable land," producing "large quantities of biofuels" that "substantially increased economic profit." But they add that the end result was "only a modest net GHG [greenhouse gas] abatement" that had "a negligible effect on net energy production." In addition, they indicate that the economic profit was largely due to "farm subsidies for GHG mitigation," and that whatever benefits were accrued came "at the cost of substantially reduced food and fiber production."....."if biofuels are to be embraced," as Bryan et al. comment in concluding their assessment of the issue, "additional policy design features and institutions are required to support farm subsidies."" [Brett A. Bryan, Darran King, Enli Wang 2010: Global Change Biology Bioenergy]
Read here. The UK's highly publicized Stern report on global warming impacts has been analyzed extensively and now finds itself on the ash heap of likely fraudulent, totally misleading economic/science research.
Based on the flood of AGW rubbish coming out of Britain, one wonders if the UK's elites and ruling class have taken a blood oath to assure their country is viewed as the island of messianic idiots and imbeciles; or, are they just attempting to enrich themselves by impoverishing their subjects?
A new World Bank study by scholars has this summary of the hysterical, Lord Stern AGW climate-impact "research":
"Given empirical evidence about the link between climate and damages, climate change is calculated to increase the damages from these five extreme events by between $11 and $16 billion a year by 2100. There is little supporting evidence that climate affects deaths from these events.....These values are completely consistent with estimates in the literature per extreme event. However, they are completely inconsistent with values stated by Stern (2006) who suggests that extreme event damages could be 0.5 to 1.0 percent of GWP by 2050. Oral statements by Lord Stern even suggest values as high as 5 percent of GWP by 2200. The Stern analysis has been criticized because it confuses changes caused by what is in harms’ way (baseline changes) with what is caused by climate change (Pielke 2007b). But even this mistake cannot justify the estimates by Lord Stern. The hypothesized damages quoted by Lord Stern are completely inconsistent with empirical evidence." [Robert Mendelsohn and Gokay Saher - pdf here.]
In addition, Roger Pielke, Jr. states:
"These studies underscore the fact that efforts to try to pin claims of attribution of recent events to greenhouse gas emissions are empirically groundless, even if symbolically and emotionally satisfying. We are going to have to proceed into the future without knowing the influence of greenhouse gas emissions on extremes."
Read here. For some European citizens, the cost of global warming impact might reach a maximum of $330 per year; for others, it may be as low as $66 per year per person. This is the measly, almost negligible cost if existing human CO2 emission growth is not curtailed. This is infinitesimally smaller than a blip on the proverbial radar screen of potential future catastrophes. (An asteroid/meteor striking Earth over the next 70 years anyone?)
The Ciscar et al. peer-reviewed study examined aggressive, worst-case IPCC impact scenarios if CO2 emissions continued unabated, thus causing the hypothetical "positive feedback" warming. This meager EU per capita cost of speculative climate change is in stark contrast to the multiple trillions that Europeans would have to spend to achieve the highly unlikely utopia of a low/zero CO2 emitting, industrial/consumer society.
"A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) finds that if the climate of the 2080s were to occur today, the annual loss in household welfare in the European Union (EU) would range between 0.2–1%. Furthermore, this minuscule change was derived using aggressive IPCC scenarios for temperature and sea-level rise. Regardless of the claims made by climate change doomsayers, the future is not going to suck after all.....This article [study] quantifies the potential consequences of climate change in Europe in four market impact categories (agriculture, river floods, coastal areas, and tourism) and one nonmarket impact (human health). The methodology integrates a set of coherent, high-resolution climate change projections and physical models into an economic modeling framework.....To put that into perspective, the average yearly income of an EU resident is around €24,000 ($33,000).....This means that the impact on individuals would range from €48 to €240 ($66–330) a year.....Bias not withstanding, in the end the impact turns out to be negligible, costing the average citizen no more than a dinner for two in a nice restaurant or an overnight stay in an upscale hotel. This study sends a message, and that message is simple: global warming, if it takes place at all, will hardly be noticed. [Juan-Carlos Ciscar, Ana Iglesias, Luc Feyen, László Szabó, Denise Van Regemorter, Bas Amelung, Robert Nicholls, Paul Watkiss, Ole B. Christensen, Rutger Dankers, Luis Garrote, Clare M. Goodess, Alistair Hunt, Alvaro Moreno, Julie Richards, and Antonio Soria 2011: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]
Read here. Insurance companies are seeking any means to increase premiums and profits. One of the current favorite approaches is to conjure up potential disaster scenarios, due to "consensus" global warming science, so that consumer/business insurance premiums can be raised with "expert consensus" justification, so as not to run afoul of regulators.
"RMS said the change that drove Florida property insurance bills to record highs was based on "scientific consensus."
To accomplish this task, all it takes is to rent a few climate "expert" bodies for an afternoon and ask them predict natural disasters based on their simplistic religion (ooops, hypothesis) that human CO2 causes global warming, which then supposedly causes more disasters. These are the great, scientific, climate expert minds at work, on the behalf of insurance companies seeking greater profits. (Hmmm....does RICO apply to insurance companies and their scientist collaborators?)
Turns out the "experts" were totally wrong, but what the heck...it only cost those pesky, ingrate consumers/businesses some additional $82 billion in hurricane premiums and policy cancellations.
Read here. The power elite of California are totally out of control, driving the once great state into perpetual Greece-dom. The lies and scaremongering that Big Labor, Big Wealth, Big Government and Big Media spread about the benefits of AB32 (lottsa green jobs!) and the dangers of passing Proposition 23 will continue to make news as economic reality is forced on the California voters. It's truly going to be an ugly reality show.
Did we say ugly? No sooner than the defeat of Proposition 23, a California solar company that received $535 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars closed one of its major manufacturing plants, causing California to experience a 1,000 loss of those really fantastic, secure green jobs.
"Solyndra, if you remember, was visited by President Obama and touted as being so wonderful. $535 million “wonderful”
Instead of having 2 plants, they will now close one, leaving only the new one running. (Flush!)
Instead of having 2,000 green jobs, they’ll can 1,000 people and we’ll only have 1,000 green jobs. (Flush!)
They will also eliminate 155 to 175 jobs at the new Fremont plant. (Total of 1,155 to 1,175 green jobs down the toilet – flush!)
The Obama Administration gave them $535 million in loan guarantees. (Tax dollars down the toilet?)
So, two days after Prop 23 was voted down we have our first green-tech company in California having major problems. If they are having major trouble after an infusion of about $1.535 billion dollars, I have to wonder just how good these wonderful green jobs that AB32 is allegedly going to create will be? How many hundreds of millions or billions of tax dollars will be required to subsidize them? Will there even be a significant amount of green jobs created? Or, will they end up in some other state or country where operating costs are cheaper and regulations fewer?"
Read here. Democrat politicians decided to crush the incandescent light bulb manufacturing sector in the U.S. as a required sacrifice to the fanatical religion practiced by the left's global warming activists. Democrat politicians pursued this goal even knowing that if every U.S. household quit using incandescent bulbs immediately, there would be absolutely zero impact on global warming, or cooling for that matter.
Regardless of climate scientific facts, leftist/liberal politicians decided to kill U.S. light bulb manufacturing and thus transfer good American jobs to the gargantuan environmental hellhole commonly known as China. (click on images to enlarge; source of images, plus more images)
Of course, in return for having these "evil" U.S. jobs transferred to China, we get crappy CFL bulbs, laden with dangerous mercury, producing inferior light, at a higher cost per bulb, and they don't nearly last as long as advertised. (Just the opposite of what compnaies like GE claim for their Chinese light bulbs.)
Want to increase more American job loss to China, and at the same time increase global pollution from the Chinese? Just vote Democratic, the loyal party of the Chinese Full Employment/Pollution Act - it's really as simple as that.
Read here. It's fairly obvious that the only reason Obama supports the ethanol program, which burns food to make fuel, is due to wealthy supporters. These individuals and businesses that are heavily invested in the profit-making potential of bio-fuels, require government subsides and mandates (e.g. 15% of gas supply has to be ethanol based) to enrich themselves. And they give a lot of money to Obama and Democrats in order to procure those subsidies and mandates. Now, even the major media supporters of Obama are speaking out on the ethanol scam for the rich.
There is no other rational reason to support any ethanol production, as its many environmental and economic/consumer shortcomings have been well documented. Add these shortcomings to the fact that by making major reductions in the world's food supply in order to feed cars, thus causing more malnourishment and starvation, is just simply immoral.
"...That said, note that since 2004, the amount of grain the US has diverted to the ethanol sector has tripled. And during that same time period, the number of people globally who are undernourished has increased by about 150 million.....While the mortality rates in the US are worth noting, the report from the Earth Policy Institute underscores the immorality of the entire corn ethanol scam. I seldom talk about morals and immorality as those issues are fraught with value judgments. But the immorality of the ethanol scam is obvious: the US is burning food to make motor fuel. And it is doing so at a time when there is growing global demand for inexpensive food and no shortage of motor fuel.....There are lots of stupid federal programs. There are lots of wasteful federal programs. The corn ethanol mandates are immoral. "
Read here, here and here. It is common knowledge that the inhalation of black soot particles kill hundreds of thousands of individuals each year. It is common knowledge that black soot from combustion is a major contributor to global warming and Arctic area ice/tundra melting/thawing. It is common knowledge that reducing the production of black soot is considered easier and less painful than reducing human-based CO2 emissions. Yet the IPCC and politicians have done nothing to solve the huge black soot global problem(s) that would be so beneficial to humans and the environment. Why?
The reality as to 'why' is fairly clear. Black soot reduction neither enriches nor empowers. Understand the reality: wealthy individuals, such as Al Gore and George Soros, seek to immensely enrich themselves via various CO2 'cap and trade' schemes; in a similar vein, organizations such as the UN and the EU hoped to expand their power and control over individuals via increased CO2 regulations and emissions taxation. This combination of greedy carbon-barons and rapacious non-sovereign entities presented the perfect storm that kept the real black soot problems of death and warming from being solved.
"Compared to the larger, longer term task of getting greenhouse-gas pollution under control, limiting soot wouldn’t be hard. Unlike new energy technology and profound changes in lifestyle, the tools — exhaust filters, clean-burning stoves — already exist.....Soot has such a strong climate effect, but it has a lifetime in the atmosphere of just a few weeks. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime of 30 to 50 years. If you totally stop CO2 emissions today, the Arctic will still be totally melted.....If soot pollution is immediately curtailed, “the reductions start to occur pretty much right away. Within months, you’ll start seeing temperature differences.” According to Jacobson, climate policymakers have paid little attention to soot. “There are international efforts to limit greenhouse gases, but they completely ignore soot as something to control from a climate perspective,”.....The draft international climate treaty negotiated last year in Copenhagen doesn’t contain soot-specific provisions."
Read here. If one desires any proof that the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress could care less about the environment, the legislation to expand the use of ethanol as fuel is all one needs. Almost all proposed climate/energy legislation is blatant big corporate welfare or an attempt to enrich wealthy liberal/left donors who invest in get-rich-quick-on-taxpayer-subsidies green schemes.
The ethanol expansion is a classic case of a gigantic corporate welfare scheme, which a lot of people and groups (both left and right) are now plenty sick and tired of, as the above linked article documents.
And, as we've mentioned before, the ethanol (and other biofuels) solution is just plain stupid for a lot of important reasons.
Ethanol produces little or no additional energy versus energy needed to produce it.
Can damage vehicle engines not designed to run on ethanol.
Result in greater CO2 emissions than fossil fuel.
Causes rising food prices either directly or by competing with food crops.
Food riots and hunger have been direct result of higher ethanol production.
Encourages clearing of climate-stabilizing forest lands.
Increases use of fertilizer leading to greater runoff and NOx emissions.
Huge amounts of scarce fresh water wasted to produce single gallon of ethanol.
Produce less energy than simply burning the biomass to produce electricity.
Are only commercially viable with government subsidies and forced use mandates.
Read here. Obama and Democrats continue to propose and maintain energy regulations/legislation that suck big money out of taxpayers' wallet to enrich the Dem-Left's renewable energy, big corporate supporters and lobbyists.
$1.78 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Corn ethanol
$2.55 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Celluosic ethanol
$3.00 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Biodiesel
So far, renewable energy schemes (scams?) from large corporations are mostly environmental disasters, funded by the gigantic annual expense to individual taxpayers.
Read here. Big government loves renewable energy mandates and projects. Why? These projects require huge government handouts and subsidies that empower politicians and enrich their friends/lobbyists.
Most governments are now discovering that renewable energy initiatives are a sure path to uncontrolled government spending in the name of huge "renewable" corporate welfare. The Obama administration heartily embraces this form of corporate welfare to the painful detriment of the individual taxpayer and small businessperson.
"Renewable energy has proved an expensive and unreliable source of energy everywhere it has been tried on a significant scale. And now there is a big divide among the major European economies that have enthusiastically adopted wind, solar and the other renewables.....While the UK ploughs ahead by throwing good money after bad, Italy, Spain and Germany are cutting back on their taxpayer/ratepayer-funded generosity toward politically correct energies. France, meanwhile, with its abundant nuclear power, has smartly stayed out of the game.....Some countries are waking up to the disaster of extravagant subsidies to renewable energy. But Britain isn’t. The lesson for Americans is simply that throwing money at renewable energy tends to be an economic disaster, but that politicians buttressed by expensive lobbyists can keep the racket going regardless."
Read here. Long before the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act legislation was introduced, Spain's economy was reeling from the disastrous energy decisions that government made in the name of clean and secure power. Now Obama and Democrat leaders want to pass and enforce similar legislation/regulations that has literally strangled the Spanish economy. Despite the disaster of Spanish energy policies, Obama embraces the big government intrusion into the energy market.
It's fairly obvious the leftists/liberals are intent on creating another man-made disaster (when you're anti-growth and anti-capitalism jihadists, producing man-made disasters is of second nature).
"We’ve now got two places strongly pushing a Green Agenda that are going down in flames. Spain and California (with our own version of Cap and Tax…). It is not just a side effect of the recession. Other places, like China, Texas, and Brazil are doing much better.....And at this point it is pretty clear that “Green Jobs” and “Cap and Tax” are a clear path to wealth destruction and poverty. It’s called an existence proof, and we have more of them staking up every day."
Read here, here and here. We've written on this subject before. Big firm executives don't give a squat about the environment. Does anyone really believe that BP executives care about the environment and the climate. And BP and other big firms that support legislation to raise energy prices for consumers and small businesses aren't doing so because they fear global warming - they're not that stupid and gullible. It's all about big profits and gaining competitive strength via regulation that favors their firms.
To sum it up, Kerry's large corporate welfare legislation brings home the bacon, so-to-speak.
"* British Petroleum and Conoco Phillips opposed cap-and-trade legislation enacted by the House of Representatives because they thought it was insufficiently generous. In the Senate, they got a better deal. Senator Kerry said that he’s “been working very closely” with BP and C-P, and the lobbying has paid dividends. The refining industry receives twice as many free carbon credits under Kerry’s cap-and-trade scheme as the one established by the House. C-P CEO Jim Mulva even bragged in a statement that his company “is pleased with the attention that has been given our key issues.”
* Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other Wall Street firms long have lobbied for climate legislation because they would reap huge fees in brokering the trade of energy-rationing coupons (a.k.a. carbon credits) under a cap-and-trade scheme. By 2020, the global carbon market could be worth $3 trillion, according to London-based New Energy Finance."
That's a lot to read but represents only a small portion of the articles written about "green" corruption, especially regarding activities involved with cap and trade schemes. The cap and trade dollar potential is gigantic, and as it turns out, can easily be leveraged and manipulated with a variety of corrupt tactics.
What do organized crime, Goldman Sachs, Gore, and Soros all have in common? If you think it's their desiring a better planet, you've definitely got your head up your arse with blinkers on.
If you prefer viewing instead of reading, take the time to watch these videos about what 'cap and trade' is really about.
Read here. As we have written about before, ethanol and other biofuels are not only economic disasters, they are also very harmful to the environment. As the actual science of biofuels is slipping out, these fuels actually can cause more CO2 emissions than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace.
Politicians decided to close their eyes to the real environmental science because of the dollars that biofuel lobbyists were throwing around. The same lucre-spreading is happening in regards to cap and trade CO2 legislation.
"Biofuels such as biodiesel from soy beans can create up to four times more climate-warming emissions than standard diesel or petrol, according to an EU document released under freedom of information laws...Chief among those fears is that biofuel production soaks up grain from global commodity markets, forcing up food prices and encouraging farmers to clear tropical forests in the quest for new land...Burning forests releases vast quantities of carbon dioxide and often cancels out many of the climate benefits sought from biofuels...Biodiesel from North American soybeans has an indirect carbon footprint of 339.9 kilograms of CO2 per gigajoule -- four times higher than standard diesel ..."
Video's here. As only Glenn Beck could, he chalkboards the incredible entanglement of people and organizations of the Left (Progressives/Socialists/Unions/Marxists/Democrats) behind the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Literally, the entire CCX endeavor collapses if 'cap & trade' legislation isn't passed and the potential lost profit opportunities exceed trillions per year for the Left's patrons.
There are a total 7 parts to the two videos and well worth the time invested to view as an aid to clarifying what actually is being attempted. It is truly mind-boggling that the mainstream media has been virtually silent on the machinations, on the groups and on the people behind the CCX. Just more proof that old media is dying because it continually fails to serve the public's interest.
Read here. Using food crops to power transportation has to be one of the most brain-dead energy policies ever conceived. We have writtenaboutthis subject before as it is causing all sorts of serious problems that would be best solved by ceasing all subsidization of biofuel production, immediately.
Readhere. The infamousClimategate(and other 'Gate') scientists and government agencies, which have been exposed as scientific charlatans and false prophets of climate doom, have devised a coordinated,PR propaganda campaignthat puts a public face on their continuing denial of the exposed scientific malfeasance associated with global warming science.This public exposure of malfeasance has resulted, for climate scientists, climate agencies and global warming activists, an immense credibility loss, and has severely damaged the reputation of the overall science community.
Here is how a relatively small group of climate scientists and their facilitators (i.e., IPCC, Al Gore, George Soros, etc.) managed to accomplish this almost impossible to do achievement:
1. Willfully sensationalized global warming hypothetical, catastrophic scenarios.
Read here. Obama and the Democrats want Americans to believe that their policies are about saving the world from global warming and at the same time creating green jobs. Unfortunately, the science proves that cutting U.S. CO2 emissions will do nothing to global temperatures, and what about green jobs? The "green jobs" farce is, well,.... er, a farce.
So, what is the goal of the Obama administration if the actual science and real economics reveal administration fanciful claims to be false?
Well, investments in solar and other alternative investments do have a "green" payback for a select few.....
"For more than a decade a Silicon Valley venture capitalist has been going to Washington as an ambassador from the high-tech industry, donating along with his wife about $800,000 to Democrats since 2000....[his] interests in Beltway policies deepened, as he bet hundreds of millions of dollars in private capital on green-energy start-ups, many of which were seeking federal subsidies and regulatory aid....Obama's energy gurus rely on advice from campaign donors, lobbyists, corporations, think tanks, unions and environmentalists to help shape policies. Once again, there are questions about whether a new President's approach to energy is a product of Washington's unchanged, pay-to-play culture in which political supporters are offered special access to the policymaking process."
Read here. One has to be significantly brain-impaired to actually believe what's being shoveled out by the Obama administration and the special interests (big $$ lobbyists) on jobs, energy and climate. As the article points out, the politician's "green jobs" are not necessarily real jobs, as a typical taxpayer might presume.
"While the phrase "green jobs" evokes organic farmers and wind turbine repairmen, there is no clear, common definition of what a "green" job is. Without one, special-interest lobbying will transform even well-intentioned programmes. Consider corn-based ethanol, a technology with no redeeming features. Corn-based ethanol is bad for the environment, placing unsustainable demands on water supplies and increasing harmful farming practices. It is bad for people, raising corn prices for some of the world's poorest people. It provides little, if any, environmental benefit, with a net energy gain often close to or even below zero (the exact amount depends on the weather during the growing season, among other things). Yet corn-based ethanol has received billions in taxpayer support and continues to be favoured in so-called "green" energy legislation...."
Have a few minutes to learn more? Watch this video on politicians' favored "green energy," which supposedly produces "green jobs":
Read here. Major corporations that join big government in an effort to control and manage and tax the economy, energy, healthcare and the climate are the true enemies of Americans' freedoms and liberties. Much like how Hitler and his National Socialism associates provided business/financial incentives to German executives to participate in the Nazi regime, we now have large corporations being incentivized to join forces with Obama's statist policies, which are the antithesis of free market principles, and individual free choice.
Shell Oil is a major corporate player that has eagerly turned to this dark side, literally betraying its customers, individuals and small businesses with its support of 'cap & trade'. To see how the Shell CEO rationalizes this type of behavior, read the article - it's excellent.
"This is just a green variant of what Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit,” the belief that the “best and brightest” know what the “next big thing” is, and therefore should be allowed to rig the market via mandates, taxes, and subsidies to create the infrastructure of the future. Just describing this mindset should be enough to discredit it. If Odum and others are the visionaries they profess to be, they could all make a killing just by putting their money where their collective mouth is. Instead, they lobby for policy privileges because the future they envision utterly depends on the triumph of politics over markets. Their plan would lead to a net loss of jobs and wealth..."
Oh, and btw, quit buying any Shell products if you find their anti-consumer, self-greed behavior revolting (or, any of these other corporations listed below....firms with red lines gave up on the "One" and came back to their pro-consumer senses.)
Read here and here. As Democrats and unions march in lockstep with anti-growth, anti-jobs, anti-consumer, anti-business, anti-choice and anti-democracy initiatives, it is becoming clearer that Americans are getting fed up with leftist/socialist leaders of the unions.
As more Americans come to realize that union leaders support massive energy price increases and higher corporate taxes (which will be passed onto consumers) in order to battle the fake global-warming crisis, approval of unions will plummet even further.
Read here and here. It is very obvious to objective observers that wind power is an expensive and non-robust solution to real-time energy needs. Other countries have discovered this, yet the Obama administration attempts to keep this type of information from the public.
"There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions… Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)."
"They also show it was coordinated with the lobbyists for “Big Wind” and the left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP)....But it is clear that senior staff in Ms. Zoi’s office, and another under her authority, were told by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) of its concern over the foreign economic analysis because of the media and policymaker attention it was receiving....The questions raised about green jobs also threatened the vast increase in Department of Energy spending to pursue green jobs. The Obama administration has poured cash into renewable-energy efficiency and renewable energy with abandon....What is clear is that the Department of Energy then worked with Center for American Progress and the industry lobby AWEA to produce an attack that would serve all their interests."
Read here. Yesterday, we posted about Soros demanding 'cap & trade' from the Obama Administration in order to make his energy investments profitable. Sure enough, when the crooks and thugs demand Obama to jump, he asks how high. Yep, hope and change for his friends and patrons.
"But he [Secretary of Energy Chu] added that creating a cost for emitting greenhouse gases – which
would occur under an emissions-capping bill – provides a “long-term
signal” that will drive investment decisions by energy project
Read here. Well, only a few days before Massachusetts voters made it clear to everyone that more big government is not the solution, George Soros, the leftist billionaire, was asking for U.S. government guarantees for his energy investments. In this case, a new, big government law enforcing 'cap & trade' policies would be all the guarantee he needs to make his energy investments a winner. This policy would force a lot of American consumer and business dollars to flow into the Soros' owned 'cap & trade' energy solutions. And, by golly, he would even donate $100 million to an environmental policy group to help enforce the regulations - how thoughtful.
Apparently, the Obama administration has bought into the chutzpah of the leftist-speculator-criminal and is considering pushing 'cap & trade', again. Gee, I wonder why Obama would do that? Goodluck with that, guys. We'll be waiting at the ballot box if you try.
Read here, here and here. There are a multitude of good reasons why subsidizing ethanol production and mandating its use is plain craziness. The most important reason though, is the fact that a gallon of ethanol spews more CO2 than a gallon of gas (we should replace all ethanol with oil-based gas that comes from U.S. resources - "drill baby, drill" policies). If the politicians and the EPA really felt CO2 was a harmful pollutant, and would endanger not only humans but the climate also, they would be morally be obligated to immediately kill the subsidies and mandates. Obviously, it's all about money and control, not reducing CO2 emissions.
"Replacing the US gasoline consumption of 138 billion gallons annually with ethanol biofuel — just as the government energy policy wants to do — would add about 138 billion pounds of carbon dioxide annually from renewable ethanol biofuel. This is an additional 69 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air annually. The government energy policy would increase rather than decrease carbon dioxide into the air, just the opposite of what the government climate policy wants to do."
Read here. The idiotic claim by Democrats and Obama that the U.S. will enjoy a green job revolution has been pretty well proven to be....well....idiotic, based on othercountry's experiences. Also, the very flaky green job growth machine premise is additionally undercut by the Democrats' own love affair of using NIMBY or the EPA to stop any actual green job opportunities from becoming a reality. Finally, U.S. green job growth depends on having access to needed, scarce rare metals but China wants to keep the metals and green jobs for themselves.
It's time to be putting U.S. labor to work utilizing our own natural resources (oil and coal) and technology capabilities (nukes). Unfortunately, Obama and Democrats are only interested in increasing their socialist, green utopia - no real jobs, just more Washington D.C. welfare controlled by SEIU members.
Read here, here, here, and here. Since the Climategate scandal and Copenhagen fiasco of last month, there have numerous blog postings and articles about the IPCC and its leader, an Indian Al Gore, so-to-speak. What is developing appears to be a web of self-interest and major conflicts of interest. Reading about all the business and financial interests that Pachauri has assembled, while as IPCC chief, is incredibly impressive, and would make any big climate hypocrites likeGore and othersuperrichleftists proud.
Note: After reading about the wealthy "climate scientist" Pachauri, maybe big government-leaning Republicans, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, aren't so stupid after all; it's just we were previously giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were not as easily influenced by riches and power as Democrat leftist senators are, by the likes of the obvious UN/Gore/IPCC global climatescam.
At this point in the Copenhagen proceedings, there would
seem to be absolutely no benefit for China, India and Russia to continue to
kowtow to Europe or the U.S. any longer on the over-hyped climate change
issues. These three countries are....
Read here and here. Well, of course, Al Gore did not say that because he and IPCC head Pachauri would not profit from stating the truth, nor would thousands of political, NGO and business elites. But if he did, it would reflect reality: the world's official temperature records as presented to the public are fraudulent.
As Climategate has exposed, historical and modern temperatures have been excessively adjusted to literally "prove" that dangerous, non-natural global warming exists. But as more and more individuals start examining the actual original temperatures recorded, the "dangerous" warming disappears - it never existed until pro-warming, IPCC-related climate scientists got their hands on the temperature data. That's why Copenhagen COP15 is such a farce - it's not about climate or saving people's lives.
Read here. The world does not need another great wealth producing country joining the anti-CO2, cult-science realm, especially with daily revelations that the IPCC has lied and its scientists committed scientific fraud. Australians should not be burying their liberties and economic freedoms based on the bogus science of global warming and hysterical hype of the mainstream press. (image source)
Read here and here. These two articles provide a clear indication of the extreme lying that is promoted at the highest levels of the Obama administration and at UN agencies, all in the name of pushing a favored political agenda to control energy supplies and prices (i.e. more tax revenues). Every scientific study, in addition to common sense, tells us that as a country's economic wealth grows, that life expectancy and overall health conditions improve exponentially, all due to the use of low cost fossil fuels. As a recent example of what happens when low cost energy becomes more expensive, here is what occurred in the UK last year during the winter: ‘Fuel bills blamed for 50% rise in winter deaths‘
Which economic-energy environment looks better for your own and loved ones' health? (click image to enlarge)
The 'Climate Liars' are promoting the life existence on the right by patently false, getting-ready-for-Copenhagen, non-stop lying.
Update: It's not only in the climate change arena that the liberal-leftists are flat-out lying; it's become the go-to strategy of Obama and Congressional Democrats on just about everything. The entire freaking Democratic Party has been ACORN-ized.
Read here and here. As more and more Americans learn about the tiny impact of CO2, and that climate change legislation being pushed by leftists and the U.N., commonly referred to as 'cap & trade', has nothing to do with stopping global warming and has everything to do with enriching Wall Street traders and speculators, enriching existing billionaires, and those self-righteous billionaire wannabes, the less likely this pro-billionaire, middle-class tax-raising, economic-killer, anti-liberty, and god-awful legislation will be passed. Hey, so far so good this year, and let's shoot for that "1,460 Days" - a one-term president.
Read here. Based on new peer-reviewed research, the dust storms that the Chad government refuses to manage and control is wreaking climate havoc on the rest of the world. Combine these dust storms with the amount of black carbon soot the African populace throws up in the atmosphere, it becomes obvious that the majority of African nations pose a serious global threat to humanity. Africa and its leaders need to be held accountable at Copenhagen!
Read here. By now, just about everyone knows that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham chose to embrace the Left's/Liberal global warming hysteria, and the Democrat's devastating economic agenda to control fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, Senator Graham got fooled again when he thought he could at least get the environmentalists to agree to nuclear power in exchange for his going belly-up on controlling CO2 emissions. As the PlanetGore article indicates, the regulators and environmentalists will always find a means to stop new nuclear power construction.
Read here and here. Apple, which the world's leading environmental alarmist Al Gore is a director of, has turned its back on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because CoC disagrees with Obama/Gore massive 'cap & trade' tax scheme. Yet Apple rushes to embrace heartily the business of a country that is the world's largest and most dangerous polluter. It pollutes the atmosphere so much .......
Read here, here, and here. Fears that Obama and radical Democrats will agree to massive wealth transfer from U.S. taxpayers to less developed countries are reasonable since EU diplomats are also pressuring the U.S. to do so. The largest danger to future U.S. economic prosperity is the UN and EU anti-Americanism that Obama Administration parrots.
Read here. Let's see - not only is a Gore-backed company getting hundreds of millions to produce electric cars for the status conscious wealthy, these electric cars won't even be built in America (a non-stimulus stimulus, so to speak). Plus, the electric cars will require more coal-fired plants to be built in order to supply the extra electricity these cars will consume, which happens to result in more net CO2 emissions. Ya gotta love how the corrupt, liberal Democrats always make sure to first take care of the common American worker and the global environment.
Read here and here. Electric utility CEOs like Democrats 'Cap & Trade' regulations. Why? (They make a lot of money ripping money from consumers and taxpayers' wallets?) Should windfall-profit tax and/or executive compensation restrictions apply to utilities that are enriched by government regulations?