Category Archives: Carbon Trading

UK Govt’s Clueless Carbon Guru is Blowing Your £250 Billion Anyway

By: John O’Sullivan

Britain’s top green bureaucrat on Carbon Markets and Climate Change admits she doesn’t know what she is doing with £250 billion of UK taxes.

European Commission Directorate General of Climate Action, Jill Dugganexposes her utter ignorance in an Australian radio interview when challenged about the costs and benefits of Britain’s rush to a ‘green’ economy.

Duggan is visiting Australia as head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading scheme and was hoping to win over new converts to her cause. Duggan (and Britain’s ‘Big Green’ goofball government) are aiming to cut emissions of carbon dioxide (that trace gas that comprises less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere) by 20 percent by 2020.

Duggan appeared on Melbourne Talk Radio, on the Steve Price Breakfast Show (March 9, 2011) and when questioned live on air floundered badly exposing the staggering depths of her incompetence.

For those who doubt the following transcript of the radio interview is real and is perhaps some nightmarish early ‘climate denier’ April Fool’s joke, then listen to the actual recording here (acknowledgement: Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun).

Aussie journalist, Andrew Bolt (AB) leads off by asking Jill Duggan (JD) some pointed questions:

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an even chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

The above is just excerpt to vividly illustrate how liars, incompetence and junk science are stealing our taxes. Read on for the full transcript of the interview:

Steve Price: There are many experts on both sides of this argument, Andrew.

Andrew Bolt: Yes.

SP: One of them is Jill Duggan.  She’s with the European Union.  She has managed Britain’s initial emissions trading scheme.  She’s in this country to talk at a series of lectures and she’s been good enough to join us on the line.  Thanks for your time.

Jill Duggan: Good morning.

SP:  The debate we’re having which I’m sure you’ve heard resonating around the country since you’ve been here.  Did Britain go through a similar spirited and vocal debate?

JD:  Well, there’s a couple of differences.  Clearly industry in the UK were worried, in the same way that Australian industry is worried, because before the start of any new regulation or scheme . . .  But it didn’t have the same level of public recognition, I don’t think.  And I think that the public in Europe still don’t really know that they’ve got an emissions trading scheme.

AB:  In part isn’t it the case, Jill, that the emissions trading scheme was set so low – the prices – that people haven’t quite noticed it yet and that it hasn’t actually stimulated the investment in green energy that is needed?  And, in fact, Britain next year – apparently – is going to go to a Carbon tax of its own?

JD:  Well it’s already got a Carbon tax, I mean, it’s not been a one-size-fit-all.  It’s not just been emissions trading in Europe – it’s been a variety of policies.  Actually the price of Carbon – the Carbon price in the Emissions trading scheme in Europe is about €15 or €16 a tonne.  I’m not sure what that is in Australian Dollars – it’s probably about $20 a tonne?

SP:  A touch more.  Probably almost $25.

JD:  So that’s the price and that’s been the price for the last couple of years.  I mean, we did get some things wrong in the very beginning and we’ve learned from those.  I fully admit that one of the things that we didn’t do was we didn’t get companies to monitor and report their emissions prior to the start of the scheme.  So when it was set up we did get the figures wrong in that first learning phase back in 2005.

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an even chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind.  Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

AB:  Actually, that’s not right, is it?  I just saw research.  Did you see this?  It came last week. Verso Economics saying that, for example, in Scotland the investment in green power has cost 3.7 jobs for every one green job created.  And there are similar figures; I’m looking at Italy here, Germany, Spain.  They’re all the same figures.

JD:  They’re not all the same figures.  You can pick figures to support any argument.  What I’m saying is that the experience in Europe is we’ve done things well and we’ve had some things which we wish we’d done differently at the start.  The impact on the economy has been that it has stimulated growth in jobs that will last.  It’s not been noticeable in the impact on households.  Not compared to gas and oil prices and the impact that they have on households.  And that we actually have governments in Europe including the UK, Germany and France who are asking for tougher targets now.  Now governments aren’t in the business of trying to undermine their economies.  They want their economies to grow.  If the UK, Germany and France did not believe that this was good for their economies and good for the planet they would not be asking for tougher targets.

AB:  I wish I could believe that.  We’re talking about a region – Europe – that has unemployment at 10% and a growth forecast this year of 1.6%.  I don’t know what we could learn from Europe actually.

JD:  Well.  Europe is not all the same.  Different bits of Europe have different experiences, clearly, and different economies.  Germany is an economy that’s a coal state like Australia and there may be things that you can learn from Germany.  I would not pretend that the UK is the same as Australia.  I recognise that Australia has its own special circumstances.  But I think if you look at how you want an economy to grow over the next 40, 50 years then you can either embrace what is going to be the way forward – and what the rest of the world is looking towards doing (including China and India) – or you can say “No, I’m not going to look at this, I’m going to stick with the same old ways of doing things”.  Now, actually, it takes time to change and it takes a lot of creativity and thought and I’m not saying that every country in the world should change at the same rate.  But this is a serious issue.  I realise that I’m talking to climate sceptics here.

AB:  Ah, look, economic sceptics as well, Jill.  Because, really, when you say for example that China and India will do something: they won’t.  China will, in fact, be responsible for more than three-quarters of the world’s growth of emission in the next 20 years. But look, I know we are not going to agree on this…

JD:  That’s right.  There are 1.3 billion people in China who would probably like the same standard of living that Australians enjoy.

AB: Precisely my point. Exactly my point.

JD: But they are also investing very heavily in wind.  They’re the largest manufacturers of wind turbines in the world now.

AB:  We won’t get into an argument because they’re building a coal-fired power station every week.  Thank you for joining us.

SP:  Jill, thank you.

AB:  I’m not persuaded I’m afraid and Steven I’m just astonished that someone selling a carbon emissions programme here, saying that Europe works, cannot tell us how much Europe’s costs and what it will actually achieve in lowering the world’s temperature.

SP:  And she did say that 550 million people in Europe, acting alone, would not have any impact on global climate.

AB:  So what does that say about Australia?

SP:  So what are we doing? One quick call.

AB:  My God Almighty.

SP:  Paul, good morning.

Paul:  Good morning Andrew, I’m praying: where can I donate?  Please, that lady was just a clown.  She doesn’t know how much it will cost, what it’ll do and if it’ll make no difference.

AB:  But we’ve got to do it anyway, Paul.

SP:  Well, she was left speechless at one point.

Paul: Where do I donate money to get this interview published?  Can it be an advert?  Can it be run during “An Inconvenient Truth”?  Please, I’m praying, where do I give money?

AB:  Paul, I tell you what, Britons will want to give money too because, listen to this – this is how green policies have left Britain risking not having power when they actually need it.  They had on just a couple of days ago, on the BBC, Steve Holliday, who’s the head of the national grid which distributes electricity around the country.  He said because they’re ramping up wind power – which he thought was good, global warming and all that – people might have to get used to an economy where they could only use power when the wind blows.

Steve Holliday:  “We keep thinking about; we want it to be there and provide power when we need it.  It’s going to be a much smarter system then.  We’re going to have to change our own behaviour and consume it when it’s available and available cheaply.”

SP:  They’ll only have lights when the wind blows.  Great stuff!

Conclusion: Jill Duggan should be fired and a moratorium on all programs relating to climate change put on hold until an independent commission of international experts fully examines this carbon fraud and determines who should be prosecuted and put behind bars.

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, John O'Sullivan, Politics

Blue States Disappearing Fast

Seems the über liberal Democrats are starting to tick-off mainstream Americans. Based upon Gallup’s recent poll those solid blue (Democrat) states are disappearing fast . In a mere two years the 30 states were solid Democrat in 2008 dropped to 14 in 2010. An astounding 50% cut.

Gallup Chart

So what does this have to do with global warming? All one has to do is note that most of the players in the global warming arena have a D in front of their name.

These are big-time liberals like Al Gore, President Obama, Bill Clinton, Henry Waxman and other assorted Democrats who’ve been pushing for cap and trade laws in the United States and pushing for us to sign a carbon treaty that will allow them to tax us and redistribute our wealth to foreign countries under the guise of global warming, which is what they have really been after all along.

This just goes to show you that much of America doesn’t want to stray too far to the loony-left, which bodes well for people on the skeptical side of the global warming debate who feel that the “Chicken Little” mindset portrayed by them goes too far astray from common sense and reality.

This is what I really call hope & change! You can real all the Gore-y details at the source below.

Source: Gallup

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, Politics

Another global warming scam?

Well, in global warming you have the big scam, which is global warming itself, then you have smaller scams like carbon trading and the mafia ripping off billions of Euros. We now have allegations that one (besides Al Gore) has been discovered in the United States and London, UK. Per the South Florida Business Journal……

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said Friday it charged seven people with operating a pump-and-dump stock scam in 2006 and 2007 that purported to provide products and services to fight global warming.

The company was called CO2 Tech Ltd., which was purportedly based in London and traded on the Pink Sheets. The SEC said money was laundered through a Costa Rican asset protection company, Red Sea Management Ltd.

You can read all about it at the source: South Florida Business Journal

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming

AB 32 & Schwarzenneger Slapped by Court

Finally, someone in the state of California with some common sense! Per Reuters Africa of all places…….

A San Francisco judge has tentatively ruled that California did not adequately consider alternatives to creating a carbon market, a decision which clouds the premier U.S. climate change program’s outlook.

California’s so-called cap-and-trade plan is seen as the vanguard of U.S. climate change policy after the U.S. Congress failed to pass a federal system, and the plan’s fate is being watched globally by environmentalists and industry.

While only a tentative ruling at least this is a start in the right direction to stop this mad plan that will accelerate California’s bankruptcy. You can read more at the source below.

When will someone notice that setting up carbon trading with foreign countries, as California has done on its own is also illegal?

Source: Reuters Africa

 

Comments Off on AB 32 & Schwarzenneger Slapped by Court

Filed under AB32 California, California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Legal, Politics, Prop 23

BBC and Met Office Caught in Ponzi Scam over Winter Forecast Fiasco

By: John O’Sullivan

Disclosed documents implicate two major British institutions in a scam over ‘secret’ forecast of ‘cold’ British winter. Was a senior BBC journalist also framed?

With a winter death toll in the hundreds newly released evidence from the Palace of Westminster under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proves that the BBC and Met Office are implicated in a conspiracy of global warming lies about a ‘secret’ winter forecast. The original story was covered by Autonomous Minds blog and titled, ‘BBC spins that Met Office got winter right, just kept it secret from public.’

A report by a top BBC environment journalist, Roger Harrabin, implied that the UK’s Coalition government might have blocked the so-called ‘secret cold winter’ forecast.  But is there more to this story than meets the eye and have dark forces in high places conspired to frame the veteran journalist?

Circumstantial Evidence Points to Top Level Conspiracy

The FOIA disclosures released by the Cabinet Office provide circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy to mislead the public but do not explicitly show that the senior BBC journalist instigated the deception. Speculation in the blogosphere is that senior figures behind the scenes were motivated by financial gain to go along with Harrabin’s alleged shenanigans.

Roger Harrabin

It is now widely recognized that both agencies had a strong financial motive to conspire to spin such a monumental lie and mislead the public. Long-range Met Office forecasts based on data from discredited global warming computer models have become a running joke. Meanwhile pension funds of the taxpayer-funded agencies are heavily invested in schemes reliant on belief in the man-made global warming theory. But with three record-breaking cold winters in a row public support for climate legislation has waned.

Nonetheless, Harrabin is now the ‘fall guy’ with his reputation in shreds. It appears from the new evidence that Harrabin had twisted the Met Office statement that there was a  “70 per cent chance of near average or colder conditions” and spun that into the lie that they had secretly forecast an “exceptionally cold early winter.” But is there more here than meets the eye?

Was Roger Harrabin Framed by his Bosses?

The BBC man is portrayed as being the author of his own downfall when he filed a freedom of information act request against the Cabinet Office to substantiate his claim that the 2010/11 would be:

“…..extremely cold……. The truth is it [The Met Office] did suspect we were in for an exceptionally cold early winter, and told the Cabinet Office so in October.”

It sure does appear as if Harrabin, the BBC and the Met Office had together knowingly allowed innuendo to portray the Met Office as victims and the Cabinet Office as sinners for ‘suppressing’ the ‘secret cold winter’ forecast Harrabin first trumpeted.

However, a twist in the tail seems to come from prominent climate analyst, Steve McIntyre who rushed to defend the BBC man saying, “I’ve met Roger Harrabin and am completely confident that he behaved with total integrity in this matter. I am sure that he was misled by his sources.”

McIntyre’s may have a point. It was, after all, Harrabin who first filed the FOIA request. So what is Harrabin’s motive in trying to catch himself in his own ‘lie’?

Carbon Market Collapse Spurs Doomsayers’ Desperation

For a more likely guilty party perhaps we need look no further than those who have so much to gain from the global warming scam: pension fund managers.

In the UK the size of public sector pension liabilities has been estimated at £770bn by the Treasury and £1.18 trillion by actuaries Towers Watson. Peter Tomkins, Commission chairman and Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, warns that: “The Government has hidden behind costings which pretend that the unfunded schemes earn a return well above [market rates] … Like an unstable Ponzi scheme.”

The carbon trading centers in Europe and Chicago have lately come unstuck, as investors are more keenly aware of the swindles being perpetrated from within. Chicago’s Climate Exchange (CCX) shut down last October and last week the European Climate Exchange was forced to close on fears of widespread fraud.

In on the racket is Chairman of the Met Office, Robert Napier – the same Robert Napier who is Chairman of the Carbon Disclosure Project.

Napier is as hard-core green as it gets. He also ran the UK branch of the WWF- an NGO that managed to infiltrate the UN’s IPCC AR4 Report with a swath of bogus non peer-reviewed WWF papers exaggerating a host of environmental claims.

That cancer of corruption long ago afflicted the BBC that, like the Met Office, is governed by those with a strong financial motive to sustain the beleaguered climate conspiracy.

I first reported on their insidious back story last year (February 12, 2010) in my article, ‘Follow the money: BBC exposed in biggest climate racket on planet‘. We saw how the United Nations green machine via a consortium known as ‘UNEP FI’ has been sucking up trillions of dollars of investments from pension funds around the world.

UNEP FI admits that they engage in a “complex relationship” between environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, core insurance operations, and the insurance industry.

From that you decipher the root of the problem – a Ponzi pension plan that motivates stakeholders to sing from the same hymn sheet and all augmented from the HQ of global warming alarmism – the United Nations itself.

The BBC pension scheme is just one of 180 major international funds invested in UNEP FI. Then add to the mix the fact that the head of the BBC’s pension fund is none other than Peter Dunscombe – the same Peter Dunscombe who headed the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (tied with UNEP FI).

As  BBC Chairman Dunscombe has breached its Charter as a public corporation (1927) mandated to eschew both political and commercial influence answering only to its viewers and listeners. Dunscombe’s contempt for viewers and listeners has thus made his position untenable.

Nonfeasance Now Rises to Level of Criminality

That senior figures at the bombastic BBC and the mystic Met Office declined to confirm or deny Harrabin’s hype despite knowing the truth of the matter now implicates these sanctimonious high priests of climate theology.

Whether Harrabin really is a patsy for Napier and Dunscombe only time will tell. But rest assured, Dunscombe won’t stop pushing the global warming scam because he’s now short of £1billion – from a “black hole” worsened by recent gold-plated payouts to staff; further proving his disdain for taxpayers.

The fact that the National Grid’s Winter Outlook document ( see page 7) itself made no reference to any ‘cold’ forecast by the Met Office and that hundreds of lives have been lost and industries hit with avoidable multi-million losses elevates the issue to one of criminality with two key British government organisations in the dock.

Napier and Dunscombe are now both implicated in charges of malfeasance of public office. The way pro-green Prime Minister Cameron now handles this monumental scandal will show just how debased by the climate change religion he truly is, as the British public increasingly demands that high-level heads must roll.

Source: John O’Sullivan

Comments Off on BBC and Met Office Caught in Ponzi Scam over Winter Forecast Fiasco

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, John O'Sullivan, The Met Office, Weather

Climate Czar Browner Boogies

"What is that damn ringing in my ear?"

 

Ernest Hemingway wrote a novel titled For Whom the Bell Tolls. The catch line was “For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” Well, it’s been tolling away for cap and trade dying for a while now and continues on ringing. The United States Congress has failed to pass any cap & trade laws and now that the Republicans control the House or Representatives, any deals with that are probably DOA. Next, the Chicago Climate Change (CCX) (Al Gores’ baby), kicked the bucket at the end of 2010, and shortly thereafter the Euro Carbon Market suspended trading due to fraud problems.

In what appears to be another harbinger of things to come, White House Climate Czar, Carol Browner (head of the EPA during the Clinton days) has now boogied right out the White House back door which seems to perhaps indicate that the final nail in the cap & trade coffin has been pounded in, not to mention this seems to also be an indication that perhaps the Obama Administration is finally going to cease trying to pass onerous cap & trade laws that will only serve to raise the price of goods in the United States, which will drive more businesses out of business or off shore and further reduce the tax intake.

While it’s a start at removing the liberal-leftist-communist-greentards from the picture, we still need to have Congress reign in the EPA who appear hell-bent on creating more problems than they solve.

Source: ABC San Francisco

Comments Off on Climate Czar Browner Boogies

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming

Poor Ahnold…sniff..sniff

 

How much as the Greentardnator cost Californians?

Talk about hubris! Now we have the ex Governator of California who now appears to be trying to make himself into the Greentardnator whining that while he was governor it cost him about $200 million. Per the Daily Mail……

Serving as California governor personally cost Arnold Schwarzenegger at least $200 million, he has told a newspaper in his native Austria.

The 63-year-old two-term governor told newspaper Krone that, when expenses and lack of earnings from Hollywood films were taken into account, ‘in all it is probably more than $200 million’.

Well Ahnold, to that I just can’t seem to find any tears for you. Especially in view of what AB32 (California’s cap & trade law), which you could have vetoed will probably end up costing the citizens of California. Moreover you even helped ensure it stayed in effect by campaigning ardently against Prop 23.

AB32 could end up costing the taxpayers of California billions of dollars and untold thousands of jobs (the cruise lines are already fleeing) unless someone manages to wake up before too much longer and fix the problem. If you don’t care about us so why should we care about you?

Sounds like we may have yet another case where again Ron White is correct when he says “you can’t fix stupid.”

Source: The Daily Mail

Comments Off on Poor Ahnold…sniff..sniff

Filed under AB32 California, California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Prop 23

California chasing away cruise industry?

The SS California Economy - Sinking Fast

This time the cruise lines are fleeing. Two from the port of Los Angeles and one from the port of San Diego. We get this from the Contra Costa Times. Departing from San Diego for Australia……

The 2,500-passenger Carnival Spirit is moving to Australia by April 2012, the cruise line announced on its Web site, citing a “huge potential for growth” there while its San Diego business sags

Departing Los Angeles for more profitable pastures……

To the north, Royal Caribbean’s 3,100-passenger Mariner of the Seas is leaving on its final voyage from the Port of Los Angeles on Sunday and after a tour of South America. It will end up at its new home base of Galveston, Texas, the Los Angeles Times said. And the 2,348-passenger Norwegian Star will leave LA in May for Tampa, Fla.

So, what’s the financial devastation to the greentard state of California? Per the article it’s $54 million per year out the door in San Diego and while no figures were provided, you can probably safely double that in LA for another $108 million per year, making the total loss to the state $162 million a year off the top. No taxes coming in and the state will be paying out massive quantities of unemployment no doubt. If you’re a longshoreman in Los Angeles or San Diego make sure you thank a greentard for your unemployment.

While the cruise lines cite lower business and drug cartel violence in Mexico, you can probably bet grandma’s house that good old AB32 and the coming high cost of doing business in California may be the real cause of the decision or at least a larger part of it. While no one’s talking about it, you should figure in the high cost of doing business in California, which per the Tax Foundation, ranks 49th out of 50 states meaning only Rhode Island has a worse business tax climate. You can bet Florida and Texas will be better places to make a profit.

You can read the below regarding AB32 and Prop 23, which wealthy greentards like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Gates, James Cameron, Al Gore and others helped to prevent passing in the last election. Per the Press Telegram…..

The California Air Resources Board and local port authorities have adopted numerous measures to curb diesel soot and carbon dioxide from ships, trucks and trains.

For example, the Air Resources Board in late 2007 adopted a plan requiring that ships turn off their auxiliary engines, use exhaust filters or plug into electrical outlets while visiting ports.

The ship plan is one of several “early action” measures designed to jumpstart AB 32.

Other threatened policies include a plan to require cleaner “low-carbon” diesel blends for trains, cargo-handling equipment and tug boats.

Well, don’t tell me that’s not all going to create an inhospitable business environment for the cruise lines. They like money and they run those ships 24x7x365. They dock in the early AM and they’re usually reloaded with food, booze and passengers by 12 Noon or so and on their way with the next cruise. I’d surmise an operation so efficient that it can restock a huge ship in a matter or hours isn’t going to want to absorb all those additional costs, especially considering the current economic environment. So, they’re voting with their feet and moving on to greener pastures. California can suck diesel fumes.

Yes Arnold, idiots at CARB and the legislature, that’s the way to bail out California! Scare everyone that pays taxes away and then sit and wonder who the hell will pay your next paycheck. Way to go dummies! And this is only the beginning. Who will be next? If Jerry Brown gets his proposed tax hike you can bet more businesses and tax paying citizens will be fighting to see who can leave the fastest!

Stay tuned. More CO2 Insanity.

Source: Contra Costa Times, Press Telegram, The Tax Foundation

1 Comment

Filed under AB32 California, California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, Politics, Prop 23

Global Warming Committee D.O.A.

Well, it looks like the Republicans may be off to a good start in 2011 as the Republicans have already killed the Gl0bal Warming Committee. It is D.O.A., hopefully for good as in my opinion it’s been a gigantic waste of tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere on real problems instead of non-existent global warming.

Per the Guardian today……

The kick-off of the 112th Congress on Wednesday also marked the end of an era in the House – the demise of a committee devoted solely to climate change and energy issues. The Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, created by Nancy Pelosi in 2006, has been shuttered under the new Republican leadership. In the final days of the committee, staffers released a report on what the committee accomplished in its brief tenure – an epitaph of sorts.

Finally what I hope is the start of some CO2 Sanity instead of CO2 Insanity. Now if they’d start vetting the warmers in government like James Hansen of GISS who amazingly arrives at higher temperatures than everyone else and John B. Miller of NOAA, who’d probably like genocide as a solution to non-existent global warming, we might have something going, like perhaps the truth for a change.

Source: The Guardian

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government

It’s all about the greed

You see, we have a thing called government. Government is fine within limitations. But we now have in most instances, regardless of country, government run amok! They need more money! More money! More money! Ad infinitum! Government today is like a never-ending Ponzi Scheme!

Oh, poor bastards, no agreement in Copenhagen, no agreement in Cancun, most will say to stick the Kyoto Protocol where the sun don’t shine, so now that cap & trade is basically D.O.A., we now suddenly need carbon taxes as a solution! Which is really what all this global warming, climate change, climate disruption is about. It’s spelled M.O.N.E.Y!

According to Bioscience Technology……(my comments in parenthesis)

For global warming policy, the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference (Copenhagen Summit) was a major disappointment. (DUH!) Designed to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012,(Justifiably so!) the Summit concluded without a binding agreement because of deep divisions on the distribution of emissions reductions and costs (called everyone wants to reap the rewards but they don’t want to pay for them!). In addition, the United States failed to take action on a carbon cap-and-trade bill in 2010 (hopefully Congress isn’t THAT dumb!) Confronting this policy vacuüm, leading climate economist William Nordhaus argues in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, published today, that carbon taxes are the best approach to achieve significant emissions reductions. (Ah yes, tax it!)

William Nordhaus argues that the cap-and-trade approach used in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol will not accomplish the goals of slowing climate change (read the goals of screwing the taxpayers out of more money). As currently designed, it is both economically inefficient and ineffective (because the public isn’t THAT stupid) and should be supplemented or replaced. Additionally, a carbon tax could be a useful means to cut budget deficits while meeting environmental objectives. (Environmental objectives my ass! It’s the money!!!!!)

You’ll love the next quote……

If economics provides a single bottom line for policy, it is that we need to correct this market failure (AKA: No one believes their bullshit) by ensuring that all people, everywhere, and for the indefinite future, face a market price for the use of carbon that reflects the social costs of their activities,” Nordhaus states.

Basically this says let’s f**k everyone!!!! Out of every penny we can get!!!!!

Economic evidence suggests the cost of this limited participation is high.

Yes! It’s certainly “high!” Think of EVERYTHING you buy. Gas, oil, food, housing, cars, boats, planes, travel, flowers, electronics, and anything and everything you care to name AND THE PRICE WILL BE A LOT HIGHER THANKS TO THESE WANKERS!

Given a choice between a cap-and-trade system (such as is embodied in the Kyoto model), and a carbon tax system (such as is used for limiting gasoline or cigarette consumption), Nordhaus favours taxation: “Countries have used taxes for centuries,” he says. “By contrast, there is no experience – as in zero – with international cap-and-trade systems.”

Yes, countries HAVE used taxes for centuries! They’ve also screwed the taxpayers for centuries, too! If you want to continue the big screw job then by all means please buy into the carbon tax ripoff!

The final quote from this article is……

“The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure by one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions,” Nordhaus concludes.

Yes, by all means move quickly before the taxpayers wake up and tell you to stick your carbon taxes where the sun don’t shine!

CO2 Insanity of the empty your wallet kind. Remeber “Don’t steal…the government hates competition!”

Source:  Bioscience Technology

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on It’s all about the greed

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, Politics