VIDEO: Climate Scams Won't Save the Planet

by: Janet Redman  |  Minute Man Media

Whether you listen to NPR or Rush Limbaugh, you’ve probably heard about climate change. And if you’ve heard about climate change, chances are you’ve also heard about “cap and trade.” It’s a scheme that tries to sell business-as-usual as a solution to global warming.

Here’s how it works. The government puts a limit on how much greenhouse gas can be released in a year (the cap), and industries covered by the system are issued an equivalent number of emissions permits. As the cap is tightened each year, permits become scarcer and thus more valuable. The increasing value of the permits is supposed to encourage dirty industries to clean up their act fast, and sell their spare permits to the dinosaurs that didn’t innovate. That’s the trade.

The theory behind cap and trade is that the planet doesn’t care where you reduce emissions, as long as you stay under the cap. And by trading permits, you maximize efficiency and make it profitable for corporations to shrink their carbon footprints.

Everybody wins, right? Wrong. A new short film, The Story of Cap & Trade, released by the Story of Stuff and Free Range Video explains why the real of story of cap and trade is that it’s easy to scam, riddled with loopholes, and a dangerous distraction from the real change needed to protect people and the planet.

First of all, cap and trade programs are easy to cheat. In Europe, where carbon trading has been under way since 2005, energy corporations were asked how many permits they needed and were given that amount for free. But they made out like bandits when they still raised consumer prices as if they had paid top dollar. The result: more than $30 billion in windfall profits. And to add insult to injury, emissions didn’t decline because corporations had overestimated how many permits they needed. Under the U.S. cap and trade law snaking its way through Congress, 85 percent of the carbon credits would be given away to polluting industries for free.

Here’s the second problem. Cap and trade includes offsets—a kind of carbon trading that allows polluters to finance projects outside the cap that purport to cut emissions, and then claim the cuts for their own. Even in theory, offsets don’t lower emissions—they simply move reductions from one place to another. In reality, offsets are rarely “additional”—meaning that the cleaner projects were going to happen anyway. But because the offset creates carbon credits, the company that provided finance has permits to keep polluting at home. Even if the atmosphere doesn’t care where pollution comes from, the people who live next to the power plants and factories do.

Unfortunately, many offsets are just scams. Consider the case of Sinar Mas. This pulp and paper company cut down native forest in Indonesia, causing major devastation, and then planted palm oil trees on the wasteland it had created. Guess what it got for that? Offset credits for reforesting. This company destroys an entire forest ecosystem, installs a monoculture industrial plantation, and can still turn a profit from selling the trees cut down, the palm oil produced in their place, and carbon credits. As a result, a company somewhere else can continue to pollute. It doesn’t make any sense.

Third, carbon trading creates a new derivatives market in carbon credits that’s ripe for speculation. Remember the mortgage crisis, where bad loans were bundled and resold ad nauseum? Now imagine the investment banks that brought us the financial crisis gambling on carbon derivatives—and toxic carbon credits backed by nothing but hot air—creating a carbon bubble. This time when the bubble bursts, we could lose more than our houses. Our planet's ability to sustain life as we know it is at stake.

Above all, cap and trade is a dangerous distraction from what we must do to avert climate chaos. That includes shifting public support from fossil fuels to wind, solar, and other renewable energy alternatives, rebuilding our economy around new jobs in clean industries and energy efficiency improvements, and promoting policies that reward real innovators, not dirty industries.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



Janet Redman is co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies, a multi-issue progressive think tank that turns ideas into action for peace, justice, and the environment. Watch the Story of Cap & Trade online at http://www.storyofcapandtrade.org


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



No one wants to see

No one wants to see increased pollution but there is little to no hard data linking increased CO2 with global warming and that is what the current debate is about. The 'scientists' responsible for supplying accurate data on the history of global temperatures have in fact been manipulating the data in a manner that best supports their theory of man made global warming. Cap and trade is just another way for the elite to make money without doing anything and ultimately another tax on the general public.


"...little to no hard data

"...little to no hard data linking increased CO2 with global warming"? Not on THIS flat earth, there isn't! Since its creation 5000 years ago, earth has put up with farting dinosaurs and polluting trees without going the way of the dodo. Regrettably, earth has also had to put up with people who post crap like the quote above.


What if the polluting

What if the polluting company paid a carbon TAX proportional to the amount of pollution above a predetermined level?This would create a major incentive to clean the emissions therefrom-further,this cost should not be passed on to the consumer,just considered the cost of doing business. The cap & trade market ceetainly seems a financial boon to lenders,but does it mee the cleaner air objective?


Revoking utility monopolies

Revoking utility monopolies in restraint of distributed-energy on a neighborhood level would do much to undercut old, dirty energy and their grandfathered-in huge salary schedules. If congress can talk about revoking monopoly status for health insurers, across party lines, what about talking about this? Cap-and-trade is a shell game. They didn't even notice how it sounds, back in those days before transparency began to gain visibility in the promise game.


The above poster must work

The above poster must work for the polluting industries. Or he is just not well informed. There is NO real debate any longer that increasing levels of CO2 does and is causing climate change. It does and it is! And if our grand children are going to have a habitable planet on which to live we must decrease the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses far below current levels soon.


I'm wondering if this story

I'm wondering if this story that I hear is true. Chevron, which pollutes a lot in Richmond, California, a somewhat low-income, minority area has purchased tracts of the rain forest in South America. The sequestering of carbon in that rain forest frees Chevron to pollute in Richmond because of the cap and trade system. In the meantime, the people who live in the rain forest have been restricted in the use of their homeland because it now belongs to someone else.


There are none so stupid as

There are none so stupid as those who will not learn. The corporate moguls, who really think they can "fool Mother Nature" and get away with their denials, are a deadly combination of stupid and stubborn, and they will take the whole planet down if they prevail. A helluva lot their wealth will do for them and their descendants when we reach the point of no return. Cap and trade is a scam -- it just pushes the pollution around without ever decreasing it.


There is ABSOLUTELY hard

There is ABSOLUTELY hard data linking increased CO2 to global warming. By removing the CO2 from an atmosphere sample in the laboratory, the infrared energy-capture (heat-capture) decreases by 9% (www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142). That additional 9% heat-capture isn't ALL attributable to human activity, of course, since the atmosphere already contained about 280 ppm CO2 before we started transferring ancient carbon from the earth's crust into the atmosphere. PART of the 9% is anthropogenic, however. Intuitively, the part that is our doing should be the increase in CO2 since industrialization, divided by the current level, multiplied by 9%. That gives (388 ppm [in year 2008] minus 280 ppm [pre-industrial]), divided by 388 ppm, times 9%. This calculates to about 2.5% as human-caused heat-capture. Physicists explain to us that our intuition is not quite correct on this matter though, for 2 reasons. 1. Additional CO2 does NOT contribute as much to heat-capture as previously existing CO2 (the saturation effect - think of pouring more liquid on an already wet sponge) and; 2. The Infrared-absorption wavelength band of CO2 overlaps the absorption band of water vapor (if the CO2 weren't present, the water vapor would capture the heat anyway). We completely understand these physical effects from our spectrograph testing over many years. Taking these two de-emphasizing effects into account (that's what mathematics is FOR), we can say with certainty that the atmospheric heat-capture attributable to industrial-era carbon-burning is slightly less than 2% of the total greenhouse effect. The situation that humanity faces is that this increase in heat-capture will, DIRECTLY BY ITSELF, raise average earth surface temperature by about 1.3 deg C (2.3 deg F), by the end of this century. (John W. Farley, July-August 2008. The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming. Monthly Review.) This is straight mathematics again, requiring NO MODELING. Life on earth could adapt to a change of 1.3 deg C. For instance, it will cause a sea-level rise due to thermal expansion of less than one meter (up to about 40 cm); again, this is straight mathematics with no modeling involved. We can tolerate a rise of less than one meter. Civilization's problems begin when FEEDBACK effects kick in, as a result of the initial 1.3 deg increase (think reduced ice-albedo effect). That's where computer modeling becomes the issue, because we have no certainty that our models correctly describe feedbacks. Here is the main thing about computer models: We NEVER know if a particular model is correct until AFTER the experiment is complete. This fact applies in any field of study, not just climate research. To say, as people do, that the climate situation facing humanity is not dangerous because the computer models have not been proven is to say that our large-scale carbon-burning experiment begun in the mid-1700s has not yet had time to run its course. Since we cannot replicate the whole complex earth in a laboratory, we cannot replicate the FEEDBACK consequences of our carbon-burning experiment in order to test our computer model predictions. So here's where we stand. Some computer models say that CO2-initiated climate feedback processes will cause very bad things to happen. But because those models could be wrong, we intend to go ahead anyway with our experiment on the climate resilience of earth.


If the Gods wants to destroy

If the Gods wants to destroy a nation they make the nation mad first!


To Jan Boudart - yes, that

To Jan Boudart - yes, that story is true. It happened in Brazil. Chevron, General Motors, and American Electric Power helped fund the purchase of 19,000 hectares. They hoped to offset future greenhouse gas emissions by protecting and restoring forests. But the biggest problem is that it negatively affected the native people living there. See http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/article.php?item=308. It's a story of how good intentions can have bad side effects. It's one reason many people think a straight carbon tax would work better than cap and trade. Personally, I like the idea of a carbon tax more. But I admit it is a very complex problem. We absolutely must save the remaining rainforests, and a carbon tax would not do this, unless the tax money was used for this purpose.


The debate on whether or not

The debate on whether or not global warming is caused by human activity is moot if humanity can do nothing about it. This video is a good indication to me that nothing will or can be done without the continued looting of the masses by the power possessing few in the name of the so called free market. There is no substitute for ethical behavior in human activity and I'm afraid little (if any) of that can be found on Wall Street.


Under The Spell of the CO2

Under The Spell of the CO2 scaremongers, we quiver while we take the bit of the corporations who have, behind the scenes funded this hallucination and it's crumbling scientific basis. Ask yourself this: Does Big Oil pay? No, it is the consumer. Will coal producers be hurt? Yes, the required retrofits to powerplants will greatly hurt demand for coal. Will Big Oil benefit, being the lower carbon fuel than coal? Will Nuclear Energy (the bane of the Environmental movement, until the CO2 scare suddenly turned it green - Margaret Thatcher first promoted this, btw, to crush a coal miner's strike) benefit from cap and trade? The gravy train is long, and we, the suckers, will pull this on our backs unless we drive a stake through the heart of this beast. Get some more facts, go to icecap.us and regarding the laboratory CO2 model referenced in an earlier posting here, indeed the first bit of CO2 contributes a great deal to the greenhouse effect, but subsequent additions have very little effect, while water vapor is by far the greatest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and the answer lies in the weather on the Sun and it's effects on solar output - watch the BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.


I tend to agree that cap and

I tend to agree that cap and trade schemes are usually scams with too many loopholes. However, if we *have* to have one, there are ways to make sure it at least works somewhat. I completely agree about offsets, though, they have to go. http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/12/cap-trade-and-offset.html


Obviously all this cap and

Obviously all this cap and trade fraud is made possible by the gullibility of those who believe thqat CO2 is to be treated as one of the worse pollutants that in itself is another fraud.


The dangerous distraction is

The dangerous distraction is believing that an economic system based on greed and the never ending need to grow and consume, can possibly address the climate change problem. The problem is capitalism. The solution will not be found within the "solutions" being put forward by the capitalists. blank blueray


With the recent exposure of

With the recent exposure of the deception going on among scientists at East Anglia conspiring to fix faulty data to make their flawed climate models work, we have solid proof. There is a distinction between air pollution and Climate change. The issue has been politicized and turned into a green industry opportunity for those seeking to capitalize on the phony climate data such as Al Gore who stands to make billions while unmercifully taxing and penalizing Americans for driving to work, driving their children to school, heating their homes, and trying not to die from heat exhaustion in the summer. All this as we experience a record winter of arctic temperatures! People wake up and get off the partisan wagon and look at the facts! The Climate Treaty is a scam!



ugg boots uk

buy sale ugg boots uk with confident myShThtd http://www.ugg-boots--uk.net/



mmaownk

dmkjvau