This is a guest column that appeared in our local fish wrapper, The Bend Bulletin.
This is pretty well done and thought out, plus all of what Mr. Webber is stating about the idiocy of carbon credits is true.
What could be more stupid than something like carbon credits? Issuing phony credits to help 'offset' greenhouse gas emissions by 'polluters' elsewhere? So how do you keep track of these phony credits and how do they compare?
The idiocy of carbon credits has gained a lot of attention and even the fat man himself, Al Gore has renounced them. But do not expect the fat man to refund the millions he made in trading these false and misleading 'credits'.
Of course this is such a bad idea one of the main states to sign onto this program is of course, Falikornia, oops I mean California. Of course having the moronic, stupid liberal leaders we have over in Salem, Oregon, Oregon has jumped right into this mess, bought into carbon credits all the way.
Here is what the GAO has to say about this bad idea and plan: "According to the GAO, “The extent of any savings is uncertain and would depend on many factors, including the design of the regulatory and offset programs.” It goes on to say that such decisions could greatly increase the size, scope and cost of such a market.
Even supporters of cap-and-trade measures agree that they will result in a significant increase in energy costs for everyone. In fact President Obama said that our energy costs would “necessarily skyrocket” under cap and trade."
Here in Oregon we have already seen our utility rates skyrocket due to the introduction on 'alternative energy sources' and planning for the future by dumping a ton of ratepayers money into these very questionable energy sources.
It can and will be getting worse.
***********************************************************************************************************************************
 |
| Cheech and Chong: Carbon Credits, Up in smoke! |
Don’t buy into carbon credits
By Ron Webber
According to a July 4 article in The Bulletin, the state of Oregon hopes to generate income for public schools by developing a “carbon-offset project.” The state hopes to sell the carbon dioxide captured by the trees in the Gilchrist State Forest as, “credits, which companies would buy to offset the pollution they generate.” Having used $15 million in Oregon- backed lottery bonds to buy 43,346 acres last year, the state plans to purchase the remaining 26,000 acres of the Gilchrist forest with money generated from so called “carbon credits.”
While cap-and-trade legislation failed in Congress last year, California continues to implement its 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires a cap and a system for trading credits. Apparently, Oregon and other western states are working with California to set up a regional system.
Carbon offsets are reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in one place to compensate for emissions elsewhere. Who is responsible for assessing the quality of these offsets and how will this process be accurately reported? Who will manage, regulate and control the exchange of such credits and account for the many millions of dollars involved?
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is regarded as a nonpartisan “watchdog.” In February 2011 it issued a report, GAO-11-345, “Options for addressing challenges to carbon offset quality.”
The report questioned the determination of what emissions would have been without the incentives and suggests that existing programs have awarded offsets that were not additional. It also presents challenges to program verification and suggests offset buyers may have few incentives to report information accurately or to investigate offset quality.
According to the GAO, “The extent of any savings is uncertain and would depend on many factors, including the design of the regulatory and offset programs.” It goes on to say that such decisions could greatly increase the size, scope and cost of such a market.
Even supporters of cap-and-trade measures agree that they will result in a significant increase in energy costs for everyone. In fact President Obama said that our energy costs would “necessarily skyrocket” under cap and trade.
It doesn’t work. An article by the Christian Science Monitor explains: “By turning carbon emissions into commodities that can be bought and sold, cap-and-trade policies could remove the stigma from producing such emissions.” In other words, if industries understand they are working within a legal framework when they output carbon, the public pressure for them to cut down is weakened. Evidence of this can be seen in Europe where most countries have seen carbon emissions go up, even though the European Union has had a cap-and-trade regime in place since 2005.
An article by the British-based Guardian newspaper reports: “Britain’s biggest polluting companies are abusing a European emissions trading scheme (ETS) designed to tackle global warming by cashing in their carbon credits in order to bolster ailing balance sheets.” In the United States we have seen what happens when companies engage in creative accounting measures to hide losses and the staggering domino effect it can have on Wall Street investors and the larger economy. If you need more proof of this threat, look no further than this report by The Competitive Enterprise Institute that discusses Enron’s support for a cap and trade scheme that would allow the company to dominate this new, made-up market for carbon.
Passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill along with even more taxpayer funded bailouts looming on the horizon add to U.S. budget woes and sink us deeper into recession. And as if times weren’t tough enough, the CBO reports that cap and trade would heap additional undue pressure on our fragile budget. According to the report, government would face the same challenges with higher energy costs that consumers do. Additionally, the fall in production for U.S. industry would lead to a loss of federal government tax revenues. Further increasing spending while decreasing revenues makes cap and trade a tough sell in the current economic climate.
Though the E.U. and the United States may be buying into cap and trade, industrial giants like China and India are not. In addition to China and India, nearby Mexico (another country where cap and trade is not even a remote possibility) are more than willing to pick up the U.S. slack and bolster their already robust manufacturing sectors.
Any increase in energy prices leads to increases in food prices, impacting the poor most significantly. So, if the science is uncertain, accountability is suspect, and the outcomes potentially damaging to the economy, you may wish to ask why Oregon is following California into such uncertain schemes. Oregon may be buying property, with funds not yet realized, to pursue a pipe dream. Is this how you want your money spent?
0 Comments - Share Yours!:
Post a Comment