Ghost of Kyoto: Government Control By Any Means

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by Dr. Tim Ball: WikiLeaks
and Claim of Warmest Year On Record, Expose Climate Criminality

“I have
one yardstick by which I test every major problem – and that
yardstick is: Is it good for America?”  Dwight
D. Eisenhower.

Driessen and
Soon’s article in New Year’s day CanadaFreePress
(CFP) identifies the growing conflict as the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) tries to take control of energy in Texas.

EPA is manipulating
a completely unnecessary and scientifically unjustified control
of energy and must be stopped. Fortunately, the Texas
case is currently stayed by a court order
, but EPA history is
to do anything to achieve their goal.

There can’t
be enough articles about what EPA is doing because it is a serious
threat to freedom and CFP is about freedom.

The most ignorant
scientific statement imaginable

EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson said, “This is a major step forward in our effort
to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” the most
ignorant scientific statement imaginable. It’s made because her
agency has manipulated
the legal and scientific process
to get CO2 falsely identified
as a toxic substance.

The step is
one more in the planned destruction of the US economy and total
government control using CO2. Final steps went into effect with
the New Year. Obama’s administration is bypassing the people’s representatives
and giving all power to bureaucracies. A historical review is necessary
to understand how the EPA plan has evolved.

Kyoto; Past
And Present

The Kyoto
Protocol was formalized at Conference of the Parties (COP) 3 to
achieve, “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.” It stumbled immediately.
It required ratification by countries producing 55 percent of the
world’s greenhouse gases. After the US Senate voted 95-0 in July
1997 against signing the Protocol, Russia became the critical hold
out. Without their participation the Protocol expires. Putin
was persuaded by European countries
that threatened denial of
support for Russian participation in the World Trade Organization
(WTO).

Many nations
ratified with no plan to implement. It was necessary to have legislative
approval within each country to implement. Only then were they accountable
through fines and sanctions to the UN. This created a problem when
the European Community agreed on behalf of individual nations some
of who now say they will not meet CO2 reduction targets. However,
there is an exit strategy, because Kyoto Protocol Article 27 states:
“At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol
has entered into force for a Party [2005], that Party may withdraw
from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary.”
Regardless, the Protocol expires at the end of 2012 and that is
why Copenhagen (COP 15) was critical.

Leaked emails
from the Climatic Research Unit in November 2009 undermined Copenhagen
completely as COP 16 in Cancun proved. Attendance at Cancun was
down 82% and the pretense about reducing greenhouse gases was exposed.
It was about redistribution of wealth by making developed nations
pay for their sins of causing warming with CO2 and transferring
that money to developing nations.

International
Emissions Trading, more commonly known as carbon credits was implemented
to achieve redistribution. They evolved from resistance of the US
to Kyoto who wanted credit for CO2 removed from the atmosphere through
planting trees and other activities. Ironically, it was rejected
because they didn’t know how much CO2 trees removed—this problem
of determining meaningful values for CO2 pervades the entire story.
Carbon credits prove everything was about equalization of wealth
because no CO2 reductions would occur. You simply bought carbon
credits from those who were not developed enough to use their quota.

Divergent
Evolution

Two different
streams developed as people exploited opportunities. One was making
money from selling carbon credits; the other was political control
by legislating against those who produced CO2. Al
Gore initially combined both as he used his political position to
make money
. A 1997 White House meeting with Ken Lay of Enron
and Lord Browne of BP determined the structure of the CO2 legislation
and division of the market. Gore also formed and chaired Generation
Investment Management (GIM) that benefited from carbon credits.

Maurice Strong
made money, but after setting up the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and Kyoto he disappeared into the political
shadows. He was on the Board of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
designed to trade credits and set up with money from the George
Soros funded Joyce Foundation. Obama was on the Board of the Joyce
Foundation and GIM was the fifth largest shareholder. Apparently
Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett was on the CCX Board to the end. (Source)

Now the carbon
market has collapsed and CCX closed
.

Carbon credits
have collapsed, failing like any pyramid scheme without a product,
but like all such schemes those in early made money. The problem
with carbon credits was those who built the pyramid were also in
control of the science and the politics. They controlled their value.
Actually, there was no real value, but they were able to maintain
the charade. As Investors
Business Daily notes
, “As the case for global warming
and cap-and-trade has collapsed, so too has the market that was
to exploit this manufactured crisis for fun and profit. The climate-change
bubble has burst.”

Cap and Trade
in the US was in a death spiral even before Climategate. Senate
rejection in 1997 was because it would cost jobs and damage the
economy. It was justified, as it is the experience of all who’ve
tried implementation. In his first budget Obama estimated a yield
of over $500 billion dollars, but that will not occur. No matter,
it was a bonus to his goal of eliminating fossil fuels, weakening
the US economy and achieving government control. He had already
put in place the actual strategy, which is to achieve control through
administrative rules.

Control By
Hook Or Crook

A lawsuit
by Massachusetts charged EPA with failing to control the pollutant
CO2 thus creating endangerment. EPA lost, some argue deliberately.
The case went to the Supreme Court, but it was after their ruling
that the political deceptions deepened. EPA misinterpreted the ruling.
Lisa Jackson wrote that, “the United States Supreme Court held
three years ago that greenhouse gases are air pollution and are
subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.” That wasn’t
the ruling. The machinations were incisively analyzed in
CanadaFreePress
(CFP) in March.

EPA followed
procedures and entertained challenges to their actions. They rejected
them quickly in a Technical
Report based on the IPCC Reports
.

Before the
election Obama said, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system,
electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” He knew it wasn’t
about cap and trade, but the EPA,
which now has all the regulations in place
. They’ve identified
emitters who have to report on 2010 CO2 production levels as the
basis for assigning penalties. “The EPA estimates that this program
will cover 85% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.” “If a facility
exceeds the emissions threshold of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide
equivalence during any given year, the facility owner or manager
will be required to report annual emissions electronically to the
EPA each year until the building can reduce its emissions below
25,000 tons for 5 consecutive years, or below 15,000 tons for 3
years.”

Hope

The Founding
Fathers planned with awareness of people. They put in place limits
on demagoguery, as the November 2010 election demonstrated. Checks
and balances are the best-known limit and the process by which the
new Congress must stop the insanity at EPA. They must cut the funding
that is the fuel that sustains EPA attempts to control energy. If
not they will destroy the economy; achieve government control; and
seriously limit freedom.

“There is
no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
Lord Acton

January
4, 2011

Dr.
Tim Ball [send him mail]
is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor
at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background
in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International
Climate Science Coalition
, Friends
of Science
, and the Frontier
Centre for Public Policy
.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare