This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 25, 2009 11:23 PM. The previous post in this blog was What would Jesus pack?. The next post in this blog is When tax shelters kill. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Who thought up the "cap and trade" emissions program?

It wasn't Enron, was it?

Comments (17)

Don't forget our own little Enron right here in Oregon.

They sell carbon offsets and the company's head (a former city hall aide to Mayor Goldschmidt) just happens to chair Oregon's Global Warming Commission. (Purchase of carbon offsets are to be one way to meet Oregon’s future mandatary emission caps.)

For references, see:


But..but...but...you know this article has NOT been peer-reviewed by a panel of climatologists so we can dismiss it out of hand.

Solomon's FP article gives the strong impression that John Palmisano is the evil guy pushing for less pollution via market mechanisms rather than government's heavy hand. Something wrong with that? Sure, this approach, cap-and-trade, opens up business opportunities. So do mandates on ethanol, wind and solar energy, etc. Personal note: I knew Palmisano at EPA in the late '70s, where he had developed this initial concept of market solutions since there wasn't any likelihood of congressional mandating tough curbs on CO2 at that time.

They all share the same bed. Enron bought off every environmental group, and they were so willing to be bought off, in Oregon, to pull off the biggest scam in Oregon history. Lay was a crooked, opportunist genius.
Isn't Cap and Trade reminiscent to the old shell game?

Enron saw the importance in silencing the scientists who didn’t accept the alarmism that had driven the Kyoto Protocol.

the skeptics are treated with suspicion, and accused of having been in the pay of the energy industry.


Anyone who who visits the science blog of the year these days


will discover what a complete fraud global warming is, how goverment agencies are perpetrating it and how cap and trade is entirely uneeded and will do nothing about the climate.

Cain, while he was in the land of Nod.

The Weblog "science blog of the year" is decided by an online poll. Not exactly the most reliable way of determining what is and what is not good science.

Don't forget Gore, he's pushing heavily for this and just happens to have a lot of money tied in with the "solutions". Cap and trade is about making companies and the gov't more money. It has absolutely nothing to do with saving the environment.

Who thought up 'cap&trade?' Come on, Jack, a cap and trade system has been used, quite successfully, for sulphur dioxide emissions for many years now. Ask Craig Johnston for background on how it works. I think it makes more sense than a straight out tax on carbon emissions as an incentive for reductions.

Sulphur emissions, however, have a proven and immediate effect on the environment.

Whether you believe in global warming or not, whether you really think a cap-and-trade system would be helpful, you have to admit that a United States / Europe only system is a waste of time and money.

China and India and other developing countries have already said they won't participate in a cap-and-trade plan. Unless we can convince them to play the game, why are we even talking about the rules?

From today's WSJ

"In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)"

Read Matt Taibbe's recent article in Rolling Stone. While they may not have "thought up" cap and trade, Goldman Sachs certainly intends to profit from it.
They will, once again create a secondary investment market using those credits as a new futures investment vehicle. Just like their manipulation of oil futures. Just another example of the "free market" at work. From bubble to bust, only the insiders benefit.

Carbon default swaps! Yipee!!

The Beginning of the End of Democrat Control appears to have just happened as the house vote is 219 to pass cap & trade vs 212 against (with 4 votes not in yet.)

That is 219 reps who voted to make, in Obama's words: "electricity rates will skyrocket".

The next election may be a lot of fun. Just like Newt's revolution.


a cap and trade system has been used, quite successfully, for sulphur dioxide emissions for many years now.

Right...to successfully make Enron billions. And companies like GE will make billions of this new one.

And it seems some politicians have been selling breaks for oil refineries to get votes for the package to pass:


This is such a sham...

Clicky Web Analytics