The grand scheme to curb carbon emissions on a global scale works like this:
- Large industry A has a cap put on its carbon emissions, generally lower than they are currently producing, forcing them to cut their production of carbon.
- Small industry B has also has a cap put on its emissions, but it is much higher, allowing for more emissions than they could possibly produce.
- Large industry A either lowers it’s output, or it exceeds its cap, requiring it to buy carbon offsets.
- Carbon offsets are sold by Small Industry B. They sell the carbon they are allowed to produce but never will. At the same time, they get a nice chunk of change for doing essentially nothing.
Generally, “Large Industry A” means developed nations and “Small Industry B” means undeveloped nations. This results in a massive transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries. It’s by design. It’s no secret:
In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.” Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, “Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.” Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.
So why, when everything seems to be going according to plan, is this environmental group so upset?
Businesses and regulators should be “striving for the highest environmental standards, rather than the minimum level of compliance,” said the British-based nonprofit organization, which campaigns for stricter cap-and-trade rules to require companies to make bigger cuts.
Sandbag says European polluters are becoming heavily dependent on buying U.N.-monitored offsets, which pay for solar panels in India or environmental cleanup in China, in exchange for canceling out part of the company’s emissions. As a result, the company can avoid buying pollution permits from the EU’s cap-and-trade program.
Spanish energy company Endesa SA bought offsets worth a quarter of its total emissions, Sandbag said, while German steel maker ThyssenKrupp AG offset 29.6 percent of its emissions and Italian power firm Enel SpA purchased offsets for 12.4 percent of its carbon output.
The group said its data came from a European Union database, but it did not say how much money the companies had spent on the offsets.
Sandbag urged the EU executive to tighten its cap-and-trade program, saying more needs to be done to make sure offsets are not a “replacement for domestic action.”
They’re upset because they made the mistake of thinking this was about the environment. It happens.
Reality is, this is about pulling as much money from developed nations as they can, then redistributing it to the undeveloped nations.
Why do you think they made the cutoff date 1990? What happened then?
The USSR fell, and all those Soviet Bloc countries with their archaic, black smoke belching coal fired power plants were set free. Think of the carbon emission they were generating with that level of technology. Fast forward to today, they are getting more advanced, but their carbon emissions are set to the good old days.
Therefore, since they are creating less carbon, but have a high cap, they can sell and sell and sell. To the advanced countries who helped free them from the tyranny of Communism.
Just to clarify, the capitalist countries who freed the communist countries are now being forced to pay money to the ex-communist countries via a scheme Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called “socialist.”