Carbon trading and carbon offsetting
are similar schemes.
Carbon offsetting is done voluntarily by individuals and companies that have bought into the global warming myth, whereas carbon trading is done by companies that are forced to do so by their governments (e.g., the members of the European Union) under treaties such as Kyoto, which sets limits in the production of carbon emissions (the so-called green house gas emissions).

For the purposes of this article and for the sake of simplicity, we will use the term “carbon trading” to refer to both trading and offsetting.

Carbon trading begins by determining one’s “carbon footprint” via various formulas. (For example, a jumbo jet flying round trip from London to Miami is said to release the equivalent of 1420 tons of “green house emissions.”)

To “neutralize” the carbon footprint, “carbon offsets” (priced per metric ton of carbon dioxide emission) are purchased from “carbon brokers” who, after taking their cuts, promise to reduce carbon emissions somewhere in the world. This can be done by such things as planting trees, averting deforestation, cleaning up carbon emitting factories and plants, reduction of methane produced by landfills and agriculture, increasing the efficiency of buildings and transportation, or the building of alternative energy projects such as solar and wind.

Carbon trading is big business. Currently $30 billion a year, it is expected to rise to $72 billion by 2010. The World Bank has a $2 billion “carbon finance portfolio.” The European Climate Exchange (ECE) is the world’s largest marketplace for carbon trading. There is also the Chicago Climate Exchange in America. In the spring of 2009 the San Francisco airport is opening a series of kiosks at which travelers can purchase “certified carbon offsets.” Delta Airlines already sells carbon offsets at its web site.

Carbon trading is a scam; it is hocus pocus;
it is a shell game; it is a vast swindle.
Even assuming that the global warming theory is based on reality, carbon trading accomplishes pretty much nothing. Wikipedia admits that “... the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.” China, for example, is building new monstrously-polluting coal-fired power plants every week. “You could build a particularly dirty power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution” (“Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy,” Time, March 16, 2007). And in China the “normal rate of pollution” is still outrageous. Air and water pollution almost derailed the recent Olympic Games in Beijing.

Much of the carbon trading money goes down the same rat hole that swallows up billions of dollars in foreign aid, lining the pockets of corrupt third world citizens. Promises from a business owner in such countries that money will be used to reduce pollution typically amounts to so much hot air.

The London Times described one carbon trading scandal in India. The Indian company, SRF, which produces refrigeration in Rajasthan, is set to rake in a half billion dollars to cut pollution in a chemical plant, even while planning to invest the money to build a new plant producing a gas that is hundreds of times more damaging than carbon dioxide (“Another Day Another Carbon Trading Scandal,” Gristmill, April 22, 2007).

Thomas Heller, a Stanford law professor that helped design parts of the Kyoto agreement, said: “I spent years developing that mechanism. And now it’s completely screwed up because I didn’t realize how it was going to be gamed by people who are willing to work their way around the rules” (“Carbon Trading Is Worthless,” http://www.logicalscience.com/skepti...ontrading.html).

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months (Ibid.)

BBC Radio 4s’ “File on 4” program found that the European Union’s carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies, and failed to cut greenhouse gases (“BBC: Carbon Trading a Scam,” June 6, 2007, http://www.ww4report.com/node/4022). In other words, it has only increased the price of energy and enhanced the power of politicians.

A 2007 study by the Financial Times discovered the following:

* Widespread instances of people and organizations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

* Industrial companies profiting from doing very little--or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

* Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

* A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits (“Industry Caught in Carbon Smokescreen,” Financial Times, April 25, 2007).

Consider tree planting, one of the major planks of the carbon trading scheme. George Monbiot writes:

“While they have a pretty good idea of how much carbon our factories and planes and cars are releasing, scientists are much less certain about the amount of carbon tree-planting will absorb. When you drain or clear the soil to plant trees, for example, you are likely to release some carbon, but it is hard to tell how much. Planting trees in one place might stunt trees elsewhere, as they could dry up a river that was feeding a forest downstream. Or by protecting your forest against loggers, you might be driving them into another forest. As global temperatures rise, trees in many places will begin to die back, releasing the carbon they contain. Forest fires could wipe them out completely. The timing is also critical: emissions saved today are far more valuable, in terms of reducing climate change, than emissions saved in 10 years’ time, yet the trees you plant start absorbing carbon long after your factories released it. All this made the figures speculative, but the new findings, with their massive uncertainty range (plants, the researchers say, produce somewhere between 10% and 30% of the planet's methane) make an honest sum impossible. In other words, you cannot reasonably claim to have swapped the carbon stored in oil or coal for carbon absorbed by trees” (Monbiot, “Methane Findings Highlight the Scam of Carbon Trading,” The Guardian, Jan. 22, 2006).

Another study suggested that trees outside the tropics do little to mitigate climate change, because their absorption of sunlight creates a warming effect that balances out their absorption of carbon dioxide (“Carbon Offset,” Wikipedia).

Carbon trading is the equivalent of a Roman Catholic indulgence. It allows wealthy greenies to live as they please while salving their conscience.

Al Gore’s mansion in Tennessee consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home, but he absolves himself by purchasing carbon credits (from his own company, Generation Investment Management).

Sergey Brin, founder of Google, buys carbon credits to “offset” the carbon dioxide emissions of the company’s private Boeing 767.

Rock groups Coldplay and Pink Floyd produce “carbon neutral” albums. (A small grove of mango trees in India purchased by Coldplay’s offsets died, thus accomplishing absolutely nothing except to give the rockers a chance to parade their environmental consciousness.)

Hollywood star Leonardo DeCaprio announced in 2007 that the Academy Awards were “carbon neutral.” Attendees were urged to use mass transit, as if DeCaprio and his Hollywood cohorts typically use subways and trains.
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/c502e...ea6ec-242.html

[JOHN G]

Hello all,
I have been observing for a while and decided to register. I appreciate the conservative doctrine here.

I certainly believe in global warming. Not the Al Gore variety but the apostle Peter kind.
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

We need KJV's instead of CFF's!

Welcome to the forum John!

[chette777]

I saw posted somewhere that 78% of the world teens and adults smoke cigarettes. if this is true then we are speaking about 3.8 billion smokers in the worls. their carbon output would exceed that of cars. the same report (which I can't remember where the site was and I lost the data in a HD crash) said that the average among these smoke 3 cigarettes per hour(I know some who smoke 6 per hour, and whole Baptist congreations in NC that smoke). these smokers do not have filters on them to cut back on carbon emmisions, so that would mean there is a 100% carbon emmisions from these smokers.

If the Give-ornment were smart they would charge the manufacturers of Cigarettes, cigars and the growers for these carbon emmision and regulate their ability to produce and sell these carbon pumpers. the companies should be shut down immeadiately and make cigarette smoking illegal. the immeadiate affect would be a drop in carbon emmisions by 50% into our atmosphere.

[JOHN G]

Here is a "cool" article from back in the 70's from Newsweek reporting on global cooling!
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
The logical end of the global warming scare is abortion/euthanaisa etc.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

Very interesting guys... here is more on this nonsense from my archives:


Many around us have bought in to the "green revolution,"
but do you think it's possible that the Global Warming Movement has nothing to do with the environment, that it's just a smokescreen for socialists who want to destroy and then restructure our economy with "carbon credit taxation?"

Many Americans believe new mantra of socialism in the U.S. is "CLIMATE CHANGE,"*here are a few articles...

Global Warming has its roots in Socialism
Don't forget Claude Allegre is one of France's most prominent SOCIALISTS, and he pretty much started the Global Warming Movement---although he has recently changed his own views, you can read that here:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/sto...5-fc28f14da388

Environmental Alarmists have a bad track record
For more of the insanity promoted by the alarmist "Earth Day" crowd,*
take a look here at the smart comments by Walter E. Williams, Ph.D.:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=63542

Gore's Mentor and*Harvard professor, Dr. Roger Revelle wrote the follwing before he died,
'The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time,'
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/...new_world.html

Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition to debunk the Global Warming Myth of climate change...
Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.*It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”*These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth...
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdat..._Petition.html

Have you read the writings of Alan Caruba, just to hear another side of the story---see here:*
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publi...le_20044.shtml
http://stiffrightjab.com/2008/07/28/...e-going-crazy/
http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/earthday.html

Weather Channel Founder says sue Al Gore for Fraud:
By now most people are aware that the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is "the greatest scam in history" last November.*On Monday, while speaking at the*2008 International Conference on Climate Changebeing held in New York City, Coleman took his criticisms further by advocating that all those involved in the sale and marketing of carbon credits, including Al Gore, should be sued "to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-warming-fraud
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...s_al_gore.html

Newsweek Acknowledges Cracks in Global Warming Hoax
You know the global warming hoax is running out of gas when even knee-jerk liberal Newsweek admits that not everyone is on board with the hysterical "consensus." The April 16 issue includes a surprisingly*sane editorial*by MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...ek_acknow.html

Radical socialist greens are out to damage industry and restructure the world economy,*it really has very little to do with the the environment. Just last year, the liberals in Congress were trying to pass a mammoth taxation bill designed to force corporations to buy "credits" in order to operate on American soil. Senate leader Mitch McConnell said the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal." Thankfully it was blocked... for now...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...te.climate.ap/