Earth Day Special, 50% off on Carbon off-sets today only!

Buy your Carbon Off-Sets Here!

Earth Day Special

Live Guilt Free, Get Your Certificate Suitable For Framing.
Show your friends how responsible you are.
Makes great Gifts!

$5.50 per Ton, this week only !

For only $5.50, I will give you a certificate saying that you have my permission to spew one ton of carbon into the air and not have a dirty conscience.

Projects funded by purchase of offsets, include the following:

• Preservation of the tree in my front yard

• Forgoing auto trips from Nashville to Knoxville. I can forgo up to 3 trips a day

• For $42,000 worth of offsets, I will trade my low gas-mileage car for a high mileage hybrid.

• Forgoing owning a dog. One of the worst things you can do for the environment is own a dog. A look around the Centennial Park Earth Day celebration shows many attendees own dogs. A dog has a larger environmental impact than an SUV.  I will forgo getting a dog, you can pay me for doing so, and you can own your dog guilt free.  Price negotiable.

Purchase our “Green Elephant Special”: 2 tons of carbon off-set for only $9.50.

If you purchase before midnight Earth Day 2016 you will get Earth Day special price of only $3.50 per ton! 


Disgruntled Republican Enterprises also has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Also we have clients in Nigeria who are looking for Americans who will help them dispose of millions of dollars by putting the funds in their checking account. Disgruntled Republican Ministries also has miracle prayer cloths for sale. We accept cash, checks, money orders, paypal and forever postage stamps.

Top Stories

The Paris Accord climate change Christmas celebration special deal on carbon off-sets

I guess by now everyone know the Paris Climate Agreement passed and it is really a big deal. That is what everyone is telling us. Here is a sample:

 "Why the Paris Climate Agreement Is a Big, Big Deal" William R.L. Anderegg -- The Week, December 14, 2015
 "The Climate Deal Is President Obama's Biggest Accomplishment" Jonathan Chait -- The New York Magazine, December 14, 2015
"COP21: Paris climate deal is 'best chance to save planet'" -- BBC News, December 13, 2015

Here is what came out of the accord, as I understand it. Leaders from 196 countries approved the first global agreement to limit greenhouse-gas emissions in history.  Parties to the conference agreed on pursuing long-term efforts to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. They again endorsed the principle that all nations have a responsibility for reducing green house gases but that the major responsibility lies with developed nations to drastically cut their carbon emissions and to provide aid to developing economies to help them reduce their carbon emissions and adapt to climate change.

I guess this is a big deal simply because the leaders of these countries agreed to the concept. But that is about all it amounts to.  It is as if they shook hand and agreed to do this. There is no mandatory binding component of The Paris Accord. There is no penalty if you don't meet the target. The popping of champagne corks and dancing in the newsrooms and orgasmic exuberance seems a little over the top for what was accomplished. I must be missing something.  The leaders don't make the rules in any countries except dictatorships and then when they are overthrown, their dictates are overthrown with them.

The Paris Accord is not a treaty.  A treaty requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate  to become American law and to be a binding agreement with another country.  The Paris Accord is not being presented to the Senate as a treaty. Also, with America having an $18 Trillion dollar national debt and to simply pay the interest on the debt is taking a greater and greater share of every tax dollar collected, I don't think giving foreign aid to developing countries to build solar energy plants and windmills is going to make the cut. Simply because we can't afford it anymore, America may have to stop being the World's policeman and the World's Santa Claus. I think even liberals would prefer to repair highways and build bridges in America, increase funding for student loans, and increase funding for Obamacare rather than build windmills in Bangladesh. 

Probably some of what we are now giving as part of foreign aid and humanitarian aid will be redirected as aid for reducing global warming. We will just call it something different.  I seriously doubt we are going to honor the aid to developing countries component of The Paris Accord. Anyway, even if we do really increase our aid to developing countries to fight global warming, does anyone really think it will go for the intended purpose? A lot of aid now given to fight hunger or for economic development ends up in the hands of the friends of the oligarchs or in Swiss bank accounts. These third world countries are not suddenly going to stop acting like third world countries just because the aid is earmarked for fighting global warming. 

If you have an environmentalist friend or relative who is ecstatic about The Paris Accord, I have the perfect Christmas gift suggestion for them.  Don't bust their bubble over The Paris Accord.  In fact, further extend their jubilation by showing them that their has been a revolution in thinking about saving the planet.  Give them the gift of buying a portion of their carbon footprint.  What better gift for an avid environmentalist than letting them live guilt-free during the holidays. If they drive home for the holidays, they can drive home guilt-free knowing that you paid for their carbon offset! 

Buy your Carbon Off-Sets Here!

The Paris Accord Christmas Special

Live Guilt Free, Get Your Certificate Suitable For Framing.
Show your friends how responsible you are.
Makes great Gifts!

$5.50 per Ton, this week only !

For only $5.50, I will give you a certificate saying that you have my permission to spew one ton of carbon into the air and not have a dirty conscience.

Projects funded by purchase of offsets, include the following:

• Preservation of the tree in my front yard

• Forgoing auto trips from Nashville to Knoxville. I can forgo up to 3 trips a day.

• For $42,000 worth of offsets, I will trade my low gas-mileage car for a high mileage hybrid.

Purchase our “Green Elephant Special”: 2 tons of carbon off-set for only $9.50.

If you purchase before midnight Christmas Eve, you will get The Paris Accord Christmas special price of only $3.50 per ton! 



  Disgruntled Republican Enterprises also has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Also we have clients in Nigeria who are looking for Americans who will help them dispose of millions of dollars by putting the funds in their checking account. Disgruntled Republican Ministries also has miracle prayer cloths for sale. We accept cash, checks, money orders, paypal and forever postage stamps.

Top Stories

The case for a revenue neutral carbon tax

In today's Tennessean in an editorial Healthy future may lie with carbon fee writers Teresa Campbell and Pam Jones make the argument that climate change "brings drought that decreases crop yields and shrinks glaciers that provide water for millions of people. It also intensifies disasters that create “climate refugees,” and it turns the oceans more acidic, threatening the base of the aquatic food chain." And, they say, "America’s carbon energy tab is paid for with lost work days, premature deaths, property damage from violent storms and fires, failed crops and droughts."

To combat climate change, they say, "We need a market-based solution that will help our economy, protect American businesses from foreign competition, be simple and transparent enough for all to understand, and encourage other countries to follow suit."

That solution they say is the carbon tax. Now, I know that many on the right are going ballistic and pulling out their hair denouncing "junk science," "Agenda 21," and Al Gore.  If you really believe that global warming is conspiracy of the overwhelming majority of the world's scientist designed to usher in a one world socialist government then I can understand your reluctance to support a carbon tax. However, if you believe that the majority of scientific opinion may actually be correct and that climate change may be occurring, then please carefully consider a carton tax.

A carbon tax is a market approach to applying a cost to a  detrimental externally. I have taken a strong stand in opposition to a carbon cap and trade system because it can be manipulated to pick winner and looser and lacks transparency, will inevitably be subject to corruption, and will drastically increase the scope and size of government. A cap and trade system would reward people for doing things they might have done anyway or reward them for doing things they might have not done anyway. 

I offer the example of saying I would sell you my carbon credits for trips I will not take to Knoxville and I will agree to not take two trips a day.  You can buy my credits and then take a trip and not feel guilty. That is cap and trade. It is bound to be corrupt.

A carbon tax is not subject to such manipulation.  While the details of how the revenue generated from the carbon tax is off set by  a reduction in other taxes or returned to the consumer is an important detail, the concept is one that conservatives should embrace. Many conservatives have embraced the carbon tax, including America's leading conservative economist Aurthur Laffer, Reagan's chief economic advisor and creator of the Laffer Curve, and the free market think tank The Cato Institute.

It is disappointing that so few committed environmentalist have endorsed the carbon tax, preferring the cap and trade instead. For many, their liberalism and support for big government solutions out weights their support for reducing greenhouse emissions.

 

Top Stories

Carbon Tax Credits for Sale

I did not go out of town this holiday weekend. In fact I only put about 12 miles on my car all weekend. If you are an environmentally conscious person and took a weekend trip or a day trip, you negated all of the carbon savings you have done all year by doing such things as paying extra on your electric bill to purchase green power, by cutting your computer off at night and by lowering the thermostat. You should feel guilty for taking that Memorial Day weekend trip. I know you wanted to go the lake to kayak with your daughter or go to the beach to spend time with your mother or meet your friends at that far away concert but it takes carbon to do those things. I understand wanting to have it both ways. I want to help you.

Since I did not go anywhere this weekend, I have some carbon credits to sell you. Buy my carbon credits. I did not go on a trip so you could. If you buy my carbon credits it will be as if you did not go on a weekend trip out of town and as if you only drove your car 12 miles. Let me take your guilt. The price of my carbon credits are negotiable. To learn more visit Buy Your Carbon Off-sets Here.

Top Stories

Al Gore's new California Mansion

As reported in the April 28, Los Angeles Times, former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings."The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms."

Wow, what a fine house! How big is that carbon foot print now Al? Not only must that big mansion consume a lot of energy and produce a lot of carbon but flying between Nashville and Montecito must produce a lot of carbon, I would guess. But you buy off-sets, right? No, you don't have to buy them, you own the carbon off-set company that sells carbon off-sets. Is that not right? How do you do that? Do you award your self off-sets?

Now, just a few years ago you were only worth a measly $2 million dollars. How did you get so rich? At one time you said "every penny" you made off your global warming work went to a non-profit and you were not enriching yourself off of spreading the global warming hysteria. So, how did you make your money? Tell us the truth, Al. Is being green putting a lot of green in your pocket?

In this video from a year ago, Congresswomen Marsha Blackburn ask these questions and you were oh so offended. Well, give us some answers, Al. I suspect you are a hypocrite.



By the way Al, I have my own carbon off-set firm I am trying to get off the ground. Please check it out. I would welcome your investment. I would like a piece of this carbon off-set action. Read about it here: Green Elephant Enterprises.

Top Stories

Are Green Power Programs a Scam?

"Are Green Power Programs a Scam?" ask journalist Laura McCandlish in the pages of left-wing journal Mother Jones. She concludes that if they are not exactly a scam, they do virtually nothing to produce green energy. McCandlish examines the green power program of Pacific Power and finds that for every dollar spend on green power, about 33% does not go to purchase power produced by windmills and solar panels but goes to support staff and publicity for the program and 19% goes for marketing. The remainder mostly goes to purchase renewable energy credits (REC's) which may or may not be double sold and double counted. It is a very expensive way to subsidize green energy. To learn more about why one may conclude that Green Power programs are a scam, follow the link above.

We have our own Green Power program here in Nashville and I have family members that pay higher than necessary electric bills in order to purchase green power. I don't know if our green power program is a scam or not but I would assume they all operate pretty much like Pacific Power. Those purchasing Green Power may not be doing much to promote green power, but they are making themselves feel virtuous and that may be worth the extra money they are paying for their electricity.

It is not easy being green. There is so much nonsense, suggestions for meaningless symbolic feel- good measures, green washing, and out and out scams that it is hard being green.

As I have said in a recent post, I don't know if global warming is real or not. The climate gate scandal, glaciergate, and recent reputable dissenting voices have caused me to become more skeptical. So, while I don't know if global warming is a hoax or not, carbon off set markets, green marketing, and green power is pretty much proven to be a scam.

Top Stories

What do you think about global warming?

What I think about global warming can’t be put on a bumper sticker, not does it make a nice slogan. I think the issue is complicated with a lot of unknowns and there is a lot of components to the question. The question, “What do you think about global warming?” is really several questions. Do you think it is occurring? If that question is answered in the affirmative then that leads to other questions. If it is occurring, is it manmade? If it is manmade, what should we do about it? Assuming it is occurring, how severe is it? Do we have time to stop it? Can it be stopped? Below are my thoughts at this time.

(1) Climategate cast doubt on the theory of global warming. Climategate revealed data tampering, conspiracy and group-think. It showed that some scientist reached conclusions and forced the evidence to support the conclusions. Evidence that did not support the conclusions was doctored to show something it didn’t and then the raw data was destroyed. Scientist resisted efforts to comply with freedom of information acts and resisted efforts for others to see their research. Scientist who did not support the dominant theory were marginalized and silenced. For me, Climategate threw serious doubt on the validity the theory.

(2) Climategate does not negate the other evidence however. Despite the revelations of climategate there is still a large body of evidence that supports the climate change theory. There are hundreds of scientists throughout the world studying this issue. Many governments, organizations, and scientist all came to the same conclusion that climate change is occurring and it is manmade. I find it hard to believe that climate change theory is all a hoax and is a large enough hoax to encompass all of the individuals and agencies involved. Also, there is the physical evidence of shrinking glaciers and melting icecaps. I do not believe JFK was assassinated by elements of the CIA, or that 9-11 was an inside job, or that the moon landing was faked. I have a hard time believing in grand conspiracies. It is hard to get a large number of people to perpetuate a hoax or keep a secret. On balance, Climategate cast doubt on the theory of global warming but did not disprove it.

(3) The Consensus on global warming is less solid than has been presented. There are reasonable people and credentialed scientist who are critics of the theory or some aspects of the theory. These critics have been hushed and should be given a voice and platform. The science should not be considered settled.

(4) Climate change is occurring and has always occurred. The earth has always been cooling or warming. Climate has never been stable. That climate change is occurring and that there is a warming trend seems undeniable.

(5) We do not know the ideal temperature of the earth. Is one half of one degree less than it is today the ideal temperature? What should the temperature be? How do we know that what is occurring is not a natural fluctuation. The climate warmed in previous periods prior to man’s ability to impact it. If man’s production of global warming pollutants is causing global warming, perhaps it is even a good thing and is helping us avoid another ice age. How do we know that manmade global warming is not a countervailing force to global cooling? Maybe the scientist of the 60’s were correct after all and the world was heading for another ice age until manmade global warming reversed the trend. I have these doubts but will acquiesce and assume that global warming is a bad thing. I do wonder however how one determines that a degree less or a degree more is not really the ideal or natural temperature of the earth.

(6) Assuming climate change is global warming and it is manmade, I do not know that anyone knows what to do about it. Copenhagen accomplished virtually nothing and global warming emissions increased under Kyoto. Assuming global warming is occurring and assuming it is manmade; the prospects for stopping it are not very encouraging. Poor countries understandably are not willing to forgo the economic development that the prosperous countries enjoyed. I don’t blame them. In times of economic downturn, many in the developed countries are not willing to accept a curtailment of growth that would most likely be necessary to combat global warming and they are not willing to pay a fee to poorer, often corrupt, countries for those countries foregoing development.

(7) The current proposal for Cap and Trade will do virtually nothing to curtail global warming emission and will be detrimental to economic growth and simply expand government. In theory cap and trade could successfully curtail CO2 emissions. The cap and trade bill under consideration however, gives away too many credits and is in essence a tax on consumers. A revenue-neutral cap and trade with no give away of credits could possibly work, but has never been proposed. Another problem with proposed cap and trade is the use of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are fraudulent and fictitious. A better method of reducing carbon emission would be a revenue neutral carbon tax.

(8) Carbon-based fuel should cost more. Even if global warming theory is incorrect we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We need to do it for our national security. People will not conserve simply because it is a noble thing to do. If energy cost more, people would change their behavior. When gas was $4 a gallon people used less of it. If gas prices had stayed high we would have seen the popularity of smaller vehicles and carpooling. Over time high energy prices would cause people to choose to live closer to work instead of far-flung suburbs and houses with less square feet would be more desirable. Alternative fuels would flourish if only carbon based fuels cost more. Tinkering with CAFE standards and Cash for Clunkers programs and exhortations to combine trips and properly inflate your tires are going to have minimal impact on use of carbon fuels.

(9) Even if we had in place a workable cap and trade policy or a carbon tax and international treaties, I do not know that there is time enough to curtail carbon emissions sufficient to stop global warming. Assuming global warming is occurring, how fast is it occurring? I don’t know if the IPCC overestimates the danger from warming or underestimates it. According to Al Gore. the polar ice caps will be melted within five years. Other global warming alarmists likewise warn that the end is near. Even if we took immediate steps to radically reduce carbon emissions, it would take some years before the climate trend would be reversed. Reversing climate is like turning an ocean liner; it is not quick or easy. There may not be time to do it.

(9) Assuming climate change is real and it is global warming and it is manmade and the end is near, I think the solution for surviving it lies in geoengineering. I do not think we can save ourselves by abandoning technology. If I accept all of the above assumptions, then I think we need to pour money into efforts to use mankind’s ability to innovate and problem solve to combat global warming and in efforts to accommodate global warming. We need to move aggressively to manipulate the environment. We need to pursue ocean iron fertilization. We need to seed the atmosphere with reflective particles that will allow cooling of the earth while we have time to curtail harmful emission. We should aggressively pursue carbon sequestration. We should aggressively pursue replacing carbon-based energy with nuclear energy.

(10) Environmentalist may be the worse enemy of saving the planet. Assuming global warming is a reality and the survival of the planet is in danger, the environmentalist are likely to be the ones who will stand in the way of effective efforts to save it. I am not speaking of all environmentalists of course; I am myself an environmentalist. I love nature. I hike and birdwatch and I used to canoe and camp. I want clean air and clean water and I want to save beautiful vistas and natural waterfalls for future generations and I want endangered species to survive. I oppose mountain top removal and other practices that degrade the environment. I believe we should be good stewards of the earth. The most vocal of environmentalist, however, seem to have an agenda that goes beyond protecting the environment. Unfortunately, the most alarmist of the global warming theorist are also the people who think we need to live in harmony with nature rather than take dominion over nature and be good stewards of the earth. Rather than using clean nuclear energy to heat our homes they would prefer we shiver in caves. Much of the environmentalist movement is anti-human, anti-progress, anti-growth, anti-technology and anti-capitalist. Much of environmentalism is closer to an ideology and a faith than simply advocacy of policies that are protective of the environment. Instead of advocating practical solutions for combating global warming, many environmentalists are more concerned with changing people’s hearts and attitudes. Assuming global warming is real and the worst predictions are correct, the enemies of surviving it are the anti-technology and anti-market environmentalists themselves.

Top Stories

The Story of Cap and Trade

I know there is a lot of news and talk about the pending cap and trade legislation but I suspect that many people do not really understand it. This cartoon presentation simplifies and explains how cap and trade works. I certainly don’t agree with the political perspective of this video, but even people with whom you disagree can tell a truth sometimes or help shed light on an issue. Try to watch this video without gagging over the left-wing rhetoric. It does a good job of explaining two of the majors defects in the current cap and trade proposal: give away of credits and off sets.

Since the climategate scandal revelations of scientific fraud, I am not now convinced we need to address global warming at all. Before we address it, we need to be sure it is a problem that needs to be solved. For me, Cliamategate threw into question the severity of the problem of man-made global warming. I need to again be convinced that man-made global warming is a problem before I am ready to support efforts to fix it.

If the theory of global warming is correct however, we must address it. If it is true, if can not be ignored simply because it is inconvenient. Assuming for a moment that the theory is correct, I think the preferred method of addressing the problem is a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Just as a subsidy can lead to the production of more of something by reducing the cost of that something to the consumer, a tax can result in less of something by increasing the cost of that something. If we put a tax on products that produce carbon people will choose to use less of those products and we will have less carbon emission. If gas cost more, people use less of it. If gas cost more, battery power and hybrid vehicles will comparatively cost less. To offset the cost increase in taxing carbon however, we should cut the income tax by every dollar raised by a carbon tax. I would prefer to tax carbon more and tax income less; this will produce less carbon and more income.

Unfortunately a carbon tax has never been given serious consideration and cap and trade has. In theory, cap and trade could work. Just like a carbon tax, cap and trade is also a tax but is not as direct. Like a carbon tax, a cap and trade system is designed to change consumer behaviour by attaching a cost to carbon emission. While I would prefer a carbon tax to a cap and trade system, cap and trade is much to be preferred over a system of regulation that mandates carbon levels for each producer of carbon emissions. Incentivizing desired behaviour is preferable to the use of force to change behaviour. I would much rather use the tax structure and markets to solve a problem rather than use the police. In theory cap and trade is sound. Cap and trade was the way we curtailed the pollutants that caused acid rain. Acid rain was a serious problem that was brought under control by the very same method we are proposing to address carbon emissions.

Cap and Trade can work in theory, but unfortunately the devil is in the details. Cap and trade will not work if we give away too many credits and if we have a fraudulent system of offsets. Also, to avoid cap and trade being a huge tax to simply grow government, cap and trade should be revenue-neutral. Revenue raised from the sell of credits should be used to reduce personal income taxes and in order to put more money into the hands of the people in order to help offset the increase energy cost and other cost of living that will follow cap and trade legislation.

Top Stories

Regarding Cap and Trade

I opposed the recent cap and trade bill passed by the US House of Representatives. I think it was a disaster. Should it become law, it will do little to control carbon emissions. It will put Congress in the position of picking winners and losers in the economy. It will destroy jobs and slow the recovery and will be a massive tax increase and a massive transfer of power to the Federal Government.

The bill will require an army of bureaucrats to insure compliance. It will provide lots of jobs for lawyers and lobbyist who will fight to get or keep an advantage. Should the bill become law, those who were awarded credits will fight like hell to keep them. Those who were given an advantage over their competitors by this bill will invest heavily in elections to keep their advantage. It will institutionalize political corruption. Cap and Trade in Europe has generally proven to be ineffective in reducing carbon emissions and our version is no better.

So, while I am disappointed that this bill passed, I nevertheless part company with many other opponents of the bill. I accept the majority scientific opinion that global warming is a reality. I am not comfortable in an alliance with those who simply deny the science of global warming and think we need to do nothing. I accept that we must try to reduce carbon emission. I accept that in theory a cap and trade bill could reduce American emission of CO2.

What could make a cap and trade bill workable is if all of the credits were sold instead of simply given away. Another provision that would make cap and trade more effective is if the role of nuclear energy was recognized as an alternative to carbon-based energy. If a utility closes a coal-fired plant and builds a nuclear plant, they should earn the credits for the carbon reduction.

In crafting this bill carbon credits were given away simply to fashion a bill that could win enough votes to pass. If cap and trade had sold all of the credits instead of given them away and if the money raised by selling of credits had been rebated to the American people in the form of income tax reductions and tax credits to pay for the higher energy cost that will result from this bill, that would have made the bill more palatable.

Even if the bill had been constructed as I suggest above, there would still be a major obstacle to making cap and trade work. Many manufacturing jobs would simply be shifted to India and China where companies do not have to pay a penalty for emitting carbon. While a good cap and trade bill might reduce carbon emissions in America that would have increased carbon emission in developing countries. A unit of carbon is just as damaging to the climate if it is produced in China as if it produced in America. That problem seems insurmountable. Unless the growing economies of China and India can be enticed to participate in carbon reduction, we are wasted our time. To ignore that reality is irresponsible. Nevertheless, we cannot continue to ignore the problem of looming climate change.

I would have much preferred a revenue-neutral direct carbon tax, rather than the smoke and mirrors of cap and trade. A carbon tax would be much more effective and simpler to administer. I would actually prefer to tax carbon than tax income. If there were a dollar-for-dollar offset, a switch to taxing carbon rather than income would not have to be detrimental to the economy. It is my hope that the Senate will kill this cap and trade bill and consider a revenue-neutral carbon tax bill. In the absence of that happening, I would hope that the Senate could drastically modify this bill so that it is workable and revenue-neutral.

There seems to be lot of people, among both those who favor cap and trade as well as those who oppose it, who have strong opinions about cap and trade yet know little about it. Unfortunately it seems congress did not know much about what they were voting on when they passed the 1200 page bill either.

One of the best analyses of cap and trade that I have come across is from Ryan Love, editor of The Bowater Republican. In these two articles linked here, The Cap and Trade Bill Explained and The Cap and Trade Addendum, Love summarizes the bill and explains the issues involved.

Love links to the full text of the bill so you may read the full 1200 pages should you actually want to do so and presents arguments from both sides. These two articles by Love are lengthy but very readable and well-documented. Some issues just can’t be explained in 400 words. I encourage you to read these linked post if you want a better understanding of the issues involved.

Top Stories

Energy deal clubs Obama tax hopes

Most carbon permits to be free

By Tom LoBianco, The Washington Times, Saturday, May 16, 2009

House Democrats touted a weakened global-warming package Friday, releasing a compromise plan that undercuts President Obama's hopes to raise nearly $650 billion from the climate bill to pay for middle-class tax cuts.

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who have been locked in debate over how to tax carbon-dioxide emissions while protecting American industries, said Friday that their revised plan would give away 85 percent of the plan's carbon permits for free. [full article]

Commentary

This is bill is worse than no bill

I depart from many of my conservative brethren in that I accept the majority opinion of the scientific community that global warming is a reality. This is not a position I came to easily. I started out a skeptic. (If you are interested you can read this post: My Conversion on Global Warming.)

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that global warming is real and is caused by human activity. If I accept that global warming is real then I must also conclude that we must try to do something about it. While I opposed Obama’s candidacy and did not support him for president, I was nevertheless hopeful that he would address the issue of global warming. I was disappointed that George W. Bush and a Republican Congress had ignored it.

If President Obama allows this proposed bill to pass, he will be just as irresponsible as was the previous administration. A revenue-neutral carbon tax would be a much more efficient way to reduce green house gases. Unfortunately, a carbon tax has not gaining traction. In theory, a cap and trade system could have the same effect as a carbon tax, although less efficient and covering less sectors of the economy than a carbon tax. The reason cap and trade could have the same affect as a carbon tax is that it is in effect a hidden tax on carbon. Cap and Trade can only be effective if, like a carbon tax, it imposes a penalty on those who emit carbon and by comparison makes non-carbon-emitting energy less costly.

If credits are given away instead of sold, there is no cost to emitting carbon and no incentive to stop emitting carbon until some distant point in the future if ever. Giving away the credits completely destroys the purpose of having a system of cap and trade in the first place. If we don’t do it right we might as well not do it. If Congress passes this bill then the environmentalist will be off their back and everyone can be happy and can congratulate each other for addressing global warming and then ignore the issue. Passage of this bill will take the issue off the table and lull the public into complacency.

Even where cap and trade was structured with fewer give-away credits, it has been a failure. Countries with caps have failed to meet their carbon cap goals and the carbon credit system has been tainted by scandal. (See: The Great Carbon Bazaar) Even when on paper cap and trade has appeared to reduce carbon output, in reality it has often simply shifted emissions from European countries to Asian countries and the total carbon emissions have not really decreased.

This bill is not a bad bill because it does not raise revenue; it is a bad bill because it will not reduce carbon emissions. I hope Obama rejects this bill and tells Congress to present him with a bill that will actually do something.

Top Stories

Buy your Carbon Off-sets Here

Buy your Carbon Off-Sets Here!

Live Guilt Free, Get Your Certificate Suitable For Framing.
Show your friends how responsible you are.
Makes great Gifts!

$5.50 per Ton, this week only !

For only $5.50, I will give you a certificate saying that you have my permission to spew one ton of carbon into the air and not have a dirty conscience.

Projects funded by purchase of offsets, include the following:

Preservation of the tree in my front yard

Forgoing auto trips from Nashville to Knoxville. I can forgo up to 3 trips a day.

For $42,000 worth of offsets, I will trade my low gas-mileage car for a high mileage hybrid.

Purchase our “Green Elephant Special”:

2 tons of carbon off-set for only $9.50.

Disgruntled Republican Enterprises also has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Also we have clients in Nigeria who are looking for Americans who will help them dispose of millions of dollars by putting it in their checking account. Disgruntled Republican Ministries also has miracle prayer cloths for sale. We accept cash, checks, money orders, and paypal.

Top Stories

The great carbon bazaar

By Mark Gregory Business correspondent, BBC World Service, India

Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation. The credits are generated by a United Nations-run scheme called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
The mechanism gives firms in developing countries financial incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But in some cases, carbon credits are paid to projects that would have been realized without external funding.

The BBC World Service investigation found examples of projects in India where this appeared to be the case. Arguably, this defeats the whole point of the CDM scheme, set up under the Kyoto climate change protocol, as these projects are getting money for nothing. The findings reinforce doubts that the CDM is leading to real emission cuts, which is not good news for the effort to combat climate change. (Link)

Commentary:

The Kyoto Protocol has been the world’s most ambitious effort to combat global warming and unfortunately it has been a dismal failure. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 by the United Nations Framework on Climate change and since then 187 countries have ratified the treaty but not the United States.

The Kyoto treaty requires each industrialized county that is a party to the treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level specified for each of them. Collectively they must reduce their greenhouse emissions to 5% less than the 1990 level of emission. While some countries are on track to reduce their emissions to their treaty obligated level, many others are not and with China and India exempt from emission reduction requirements, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

Unfortunately even for some of those countries that are meeting their treaty obligations on-paper, their is reason to doubt that they are in actuality having any impact on greenhouse gas emissions. That is because many of them are meeting their reduction level by purchasing carbon offsets.

The logic of this ability to purchase offsets, is that whether you reduce emissions in your own country or you help another country reduce their emissions, the effect is the same. Unfortunately, the Clean Development Mechanism has been riddled with scandal. If you will read the above article, it gives examples of how the program is working in reality.

Carbon offsets sound good in theory. In practice most carbon offsets, whether the foreign CDM offsets or private sector carbon offsets, are a shell game, a scam and a con.

When Congress was debating the recently defeated Cap and Trade legislation, Senator Bob Corker offered an amendment that would delete foreign offsets from the bill. Unless there is a major reform of the CDM, then any American Cap and Trade system must not allow foreign offsets. Before the US considers ratifying Kyoto, the CDM must be reformed.

Top Stories

CORKER ANNOUNCES AMENDMENTS TO CLIMATE SECURITY LEGISLATION

Corker Seeks to Return More Money Directly to American Citizens, Prevent Massive Government Expansion, Keep More U.S. Dollars at Home

May 28, 2008, JASPER, TN – U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, today announced his plans to introduce three amendments to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, S. 3036, when it comes to the Senate floor for debate next week. The crux of the Corker amendments is to get more money returned directly to the pockets of the American people who will bear the brunt of the costs associated with cap-and-trade.

“I believe we should return more money directly to the pockets of American citizens, prevent massive government expansion, and keep more U.S. dollars at home rather than sending them overseas,” said Corker.

Specifically, the Corker amendments would (1) provide direct relief to American consumers bearing the brunt of the cap-and-trade program’s costs; (2) increase direct reimbursement to the American people by eliminating free allowances—worth over a TRILLION dollars—to entities that have nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions; and (3) eliminate the use of international offsets to meet emissions reductions.

“Since day one, my goal has been to support a bill that addresses climate security AND energy security in a balanced way. This bill is not that and, in my opinion, is not ready for prime time,” said Corker. “While it does focus on climate change, unfortunately it is also a huge spending bill that uses non-discretionary spending—funded in essence by a tax on the American people—to spend TRILLIONS of dollars on new and existing government programs.

“If a cap-and-trade bill becomes law, every single American will pay more for gasoline, more for electricity, more for food, more for everything they buy as a result. I believe that any money generated from a cap-and-trade system should be put back in the pockets of American citizens burdened with these additional costs. Additionally, I believe we need to increase the amount of allowances that are auctioned, rather than giving them away for free to other entities who are supposed to use the value of those allowances to benefit the public. In my view, American citizens would be better served receiving relief directly rather than relying on middlemen to provide that relief through a massive government expansion."

Corker has joined with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to offer a third amendment which will eliminate the use of international offsets to meet emissions reductions. “We should eliminate all international offsets as a way for emitters to comply with the U.S. carbon cap,” said Corker. “There are serious questions about the integrity of many of these projects, and it is difficult to determine whether these projects would have occurred anyway. In addition, these offsets would have a distorting affect on the U.S. cap-and-trade market and would lead to even more American dollars being spent overseas in countries like China, instead of in America.”

Noting that climate change and cap-and-trade would be significant issues facing Congress, Corker has spent his first 16 months in office delving into the complexity of the policy. Last May 2007, he traveled to Europe with Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to meet with European Union officials, carbon traders, representatives from the utility industry, and cement manufacturers. In July, Corker went to Greenland with Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to view the effects of climate change. He has also spent countless hours with Tennessee-based industry, conservation groups, and experts discussing the impacts of climate change legislation, and in April, Corker began making presentations to his colleagues outlining his concerns with the bill.

Commentary
Congratulations to Senator Corker for proposing these common sense amendments to the Cap and Trade bill. Maybe you can make a purse out of a sow's ear.

It is clear that a Cap and Trade bill will not pass this year. The House has not even taken up the measure and President Bush has said he will veto a Cap and Trade bill if it does pass Congress. At this time, their does not appear to be 60 votes in the Senate to bring any Cap and Trade bill to a vote. With gas approaching $4 a gallon and politician talking about cutting the gas tax and with general concern about the economy, we cannot expect politician to have the courage to pass a bill that will acutally increase energy cost. Also, we can expect an outpouring of opposition once the public becomes aware of the pocketbook impact of a Cap and Trade bill. In addition, the environmentalist community has not been aggressive in selling the concept or rallying the trooops.

Despite the grim outlook for this session of Congress, a Cap and Trade bill may very well be in our future. McCain, Obama and Clinton are all supporting some version and Democrats, who have been more friendly to environmental causes, will more than likely gain seats in the next Congress. Working on the bill now, even though it will not pass this year, is an extremely important part of the process so that the final bill is a bill that will actually achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions without destroying the economy.

Cap and Trade as now drafted is not a bill worth passing. It would be extremely costly and probably accomplish little. Also, there are numerous amendments pending which, if passed, would weaken the bill and benefit special interest and actually make this bad bill even worse. One of the major problems with the bill is that it gives away too many credits rather than selling them. Corker's amendmends will correct some of the major defects of the Cap and Trade proposal. It is my hope that the final bill is a bill that is worthy of supporting.

Keep up the good work, Senator.

Top Stories

More on the Carbon Off-set Con Game

Scientists wary sprinkling iron into sea blunts carbon buildup

Margaret Munro
CanWest News Service
Thursday, January 10, 2008

It sounds so easy. Sprinkle iron dust on the ocean, plankton will bloom and suck massive amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere and into the deep sea.

Geoengineering plans to fertilize the oceans with iron - including a proposal backed by Vancouver financier and former sports mogul Nelson Skalbania - are being sold as one of "the powerful, profitable and planet-friendly" tools in the battle against global warming.

Many scientists have serious doubts, saying there is little proof iron fertilization locks carbon into the deep ocean.

And in the latest salvo in the long-running controversy, leading oceanographers say it is "premature" for ocean fertilization companies to sell carbon offsets to investors or consumers looking to reduce their carbon footprint. (To Continue: Scientist Wary... )

My Comment: There is no proof that sprinkling iron dust in the ocean does any thing to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. This article states that recently in the journal Science, 16 oceanographers from the U.S., Europe, New Zealand and Japan, say there is, as yet, "no scientific basis" for issuing carbon credits for ocean iron fertilization. Despite any evidence that this process has any effect, several companies are doing it and using this process as the basis for the carbon off-sets that they sell. Not only that, this process my have “unintended biogeochemical and ecological impacts” say the scientist.

The next time some self-righteous celebrity excusses his private jet by claiming he purchases carbon off-sets keep this in mind.

Top Stories

Scrutiny Rises Over Carbon-Offset Sales Process

Wall Street Journal
January 9, 2008
By JEFFREY BALL and IAN TALLEY

The government is scrutinizing the market for global-warming-emission offsets, part of a backlash against the market that could increase industry's costs in complying with any new environmental rules.Offsets are pieces of paper said to represent global-warming emissions avoided somewhere else on the planet. The offsets are being bought by the likes of corporations that want to project an environmentally friendly image and consumers who want to make their airplane flights "carbon neutral."

Even though the U.S. hasn't imposed a limit on global-warming emissions, purchases of these voluntary offsets have soared over the past two years. So have questions about whether the money is funding real emission cuts or not.

****
The voluntary carbon offsets at issue in the U.S. differ from the pollution permits traded under the Kyoto Protocol, the international global-warming treaty. The legitimacy of those permits is regulated by a panel of United Nations-sanctioned officials. The market for voluntary credits has no mandatory oversight. (continue: Scrutiny Rises.. )

Top Stories

Congratulations to Al Gore

by Ronald Bailey Reason Magazine, October 12, 2007
"Global warming is not the result of environmental sin; it is the result of human progress creating another commons problem. We do not need to "lift global consciousness"; we need to find a cheap, low-carbon source of energy. I have no doubt that man-made global warming is an economic and technical problem that an inventive humanity will solve over the course of the 21st century." To continue...Congratulations to Al Gore

I could not agree more! We must solve the problem of global warming, but not by spirituality and repentance. Rational people can solve what is a essentially a technical and economic problem. Rod

Top Stories

Dear Al, Congratulations!

Dear Al,

Congratulations!

I wish to congratulate you on winning the Nobel peace prize. I admire your work in raising the consciousness of people about global warming. I have had a change of heart from some years ago when I scoffed at global warming. I remember when they called you “ozone man” and “Owl” Gore, and I snickered. I apologize. You were a prophet crying in the wilderness. The science is in. The issue is settled. You were ahead of your time. Global warming is happening and the activity of mankind is a major contributing factor.

I know you have come in for a lot of criticism and ridicule. A few months ago, you got a lot of criticism from people who said you were a hypocrite because your 20-bedroom, 8-bathroom mansion in Belle Meade with heated swimming pool and gas-lamp- lined driveway uses 20 times as much electricity as the average house in Nashville. Also, some wondered why you need four homes. I don’t like hypocrites. I was disappointed to discover that Rush Limbaugh was a druggie. And, all of those family-value Republicans who have long-term mistresses disappointment me. Anybody might fall from Grace, but purposely living a lifestyle contrary to what you preach is wrong. It you are going to campaign for virtue, you should walk the walk. But, Al, I don’t think you are a hypocrite.

I understand you work out of your home and you have to host a lot of parties, and a mansion that big just takes a lot of electricity. It is often a tactic of people to attack the messenger when they don’t like the message. And, Al, your critics are not above playing the class-envy card. I know it is usually Democrats who play the class-envy card, but Republicans do it do when they can get away with it. The reason Republicans play the envy card less than Democrats is not that Republican are more moral; it is because it does not fit their agenda. The Democrats believe the size of the economic pie is fixed and it is their job to redistribute. Republicans believe we can always make a bigger pie. So, the use of envy simply fits the Democrat agenda better. But, in this case they are trying to use it against you. Populism is the often the refuge of scoundrels.

You can’t help it if you are rich and I don’t hold that against you. I would like to be rich myself. You being richer doesn’t make me any poorer. I don’t expect you to sell your goods and give the money to the poor. Anyway, you bought carbon offsets. Some have said purchasing carbon offsets is like buying indulgences, but if the offsets really do off set, then use all the energy you want. I don’t care. I don’t expect you to live like a commoner. And, I also understand you are remodeling to make your home more eco-friendly. You are changing out all or your light bulbs and I understand you are putting in the same kind of eco-friendly, geo-thermal heating system that George Bush has had in his home for years. Good for you.

Anyway, you won a very prestigious award. I have sometimes wondered, however, why the Nobel Prize ever got to be so prestigious. It is not recognition by your peers, like the Country Music Awards, and is not an honor bestowed on you by the United Nations or anything. Gallup didn’t poll the world to see who should get a Nobel prize. It is not like the Pope making you a Saint. Actually, the Parliament of the somewhat unimportant country of Norway selects five little-known people who decide who gets the award. Did you know that Mahatma Gandhi never did get the Nobel Peace Prize? Many think he did. He was nominated five times, but was never selected.

Al, I also know some people are trying to say that you did not deserve the Nobel Peace prize because your global warming work was not related directly to the cause of peace. However, I think the augment that if we have continued global warming, there will be conflict over natural resources and therefore, curtailing global warming will curtail future conflict has merit. Anyway, there was no other category you fit for a Nobel Prize.

In any event, a lot of other people who got the Peace Prize also came in for criticism. Theodore Roosevelt got it for ending the Russo-Japanese War and some people said he did not deserve it because of his intervention in the Philippines to suppress a revolt snacked of imperialism, but it didn’t bother me. Another great Tennessean, Cordell Hull, got it for his roll in establishing the United Nations; yet his roll in pressuring FDR to refuse asylum to a shipload of Jews seeking asylum from Nazi Germany and their subsequent death in concentration camps should have disqualified him, some have said.

Of course a lot of people said Henry Kissinger did not deserve it, despite his role in negotiating the Vietnam Paris Peace accord. Some feel the secret bombing of Cambodia should have disqualified him and others feel his betrayal of our South Vietnamese ally and the subsequent massive deaths at the hands of the Communist in Vietnam and Cambodia should have disqualified him. And, some claim that Arafat should not have gotten the award because he was a terrorist. And, then there was the African woman who claimed HIV was engineered by white scientist to kill Africans, and some felt that that tarnished her image, and she did not deserve it. So, Al, you are not the first person who got the award that critics said should not have gotten it. It is a prestigious award, so you can rightfully be proud.

Now that you got it, what are you going to do next? I don’t think you have to worry about Bush getting the Supreme Court to take it away from you. I don’t think he can do that. So, you have all of this political capital. Not only do you have this prize, but also you have the two Oscars that your movie won, and a best selling book.

Face it you have raised consciousness. Mission accomplished! So, you don’t need to do Inconvenient Truth II, and one Live Earth was enough. I know Willie Nelson is doing Farm Aid for about the twentieth time, but I think one Earth Aid is enough. After the first one, it is kind of like reruns. So what next? I have a suggestion. Use your political capital to fight for a structural change that will really stop global warming. Don’t waste your enhanced prestige to tell people to change light bulbs or properly inflate their tires. Those things are commendable, but you know as well as I do, that if the problem is really as dire as you say it is, we must do more than that, or more than tinker with the CAFE standards.

In the past you have advocated a carbon tax, including, higher gas taxes. I know that during the Presidential campaign of 2000, you said we needed lower gas prices not higher gas price, but you were trying to get elected then and I don’t hold that against you. Since then, you have often called for a carbon tax. I know many of your most loyal supporters are not going to be happy until we are all living in caves and grubbing for worms. Some are not going to be happy until we remake human nature. But, that is not going to happen. Some of your most loyal followers may have other agendas rather than defeating global warming.

If we had a carbon tax, then people wouldn’t have to be persuaded to conserve because it is a moral choice; they would conserve because the harmful effects of carbon consumption was adequately priced. People respond to prices. There should be no free polluting of the environment with global warming emissions. All of the other alternatives would be cheaper if only carbon emissions were priced. Alan Greenspan, a guy who knows as much about economics as you do global warming, says the economy could tolerate a revenue-neutral gas tax of $3. So, Al, I hope you will not waste your new prestige on symbolic things and instead will make the best of this opportunity to make the structural change this planet needs. You can do it, Al!
I know this has been a long letter. Thank you for indulging me. Again, congratulations on the Peace Prize.

Oh, by the way, I ran into you at an art opening recently, at the Tag Gallery on 5th Ave. I am the guy who said, “Are you really Al Gore or an Al Gore impersonator.” Afterwards I felt so stupid. I think I had had one too many glasses of wine and was just surprised to see you out at an art opening, like a normal person. I am normally not a star-struck idiot. I am sure I did not make a good impression. If I every run into you again, I want to shake your hand and say, “Congratulations on winning the peace prize. I hope you move on to phase II of your campaign to save the planet.”

Sincerely,

Rod Williams

Top Stories