Skip to comments.The Kyoto Conspiracy (Gore, Enron, Carbon Trading, Global Warming)
Posted on 04/06/2007 11:56:24 AM PDT by Shermy
Not one single day goes by in New Zealand now without a reference somewhere to global warming, and New Zealands requirement to comply with the Kyoto protocol. But few people realise that Kyoto was the brainchild of a corrupt multinational energy company, looking to make a buck out of the green movement. KEN RING explains
Amidst the talk about the benefits that Kyoto Protocol is sup-posed to promote, it is perhaps forgotten especially amongst the greenies how Kyoto was born in the corridors of very big business. The name Enron has all but faded from our news pages since the company went down in flames in 2001 amidst charges of fraud, bribery, price fixing and graft. But without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.
About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPAs $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of todays proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enrons stock to rapidly rise.
Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission. Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue credits of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction. Under law a tradeable system was required, which was exactly what Enron also wanted because they were already trading pollutant credits. Thence Enron vigorously lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2.
From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars - $990,000 - to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to reduce global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall. The plan was that once the problem was in place the solution would be trotted out.
A lawyer named Christopher Horner was hired who had worked in Senator Liebermanns Environment Committee. Horner, employed by Enron, became director of relations with the Federal Government. That was in 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was drafted. According to Homer, on the second day at the job he was told that the Number One Objective was to obtain an international treaty that would impose cuts in CO2 emissions, but at the same time allowed trade with emission rights. Enron had the biggest natural gas production behind Russias Gazprom. Enron was making a lot of money trading with coal, but they had already calculated that the profits they would lose with coal would be more than compensated by the profits derived from its privileged position in other areas. With clever positioning and anticipation Enron had bought the worlds biggest wind power company, GE Wind, from General Electric. They now also owned the biggest solar power company in the world, in society with Amoco (now belonging to British Petroleum BP). Enron then started to finance everything related to the global warming hype, including grants to scientists but asking for results favorable to their interest proof that humans were responsible for the excessive emissions of CO2 through fossil fuel burning. The fire of malaise, now lit and kindled, only required feeding.
The expressive term Baptist-bootlegger derives from the days of prohibition. Under prohibition bootleggers and those who trans-ported and supplied illegal alcohol made fortunes. One such entrepreneur was Joseph Kennedy whose second son, John, became US President in 1961. The bootleggers had allies in the Baptists and other teetotalists, who believed that alcohol was a deadly threat to the social order, and had worked for decades to get prohibition onto the statute books. The Baptists provided the political cover and the bootleggers pocketed the proceeds. In public the two groups maintained a great social distance from each other. Now Enron had positioned itself at the centre of an awesome Baptist-bootlegger coalition. The gargantuan rents which Enron energetically sought could be realized only if the Kyoto Protocol became established as part of US and international law. Ken Lay, Enrons CEO saw Enron as not only making billions from sales of the natural gas which was to displace coal as the preferred fuel under the Kyoto commitments, but he realised that as the main if not the only international and domestic trader in the new barter world of carbon credits, Enron could realise hitherto unimagined wealth. Such credits, of course, would only become bankable pieces of paper if governments, particularly the US Government, established and policed a global policy of decarbonisation under which a global tax on carbon was to be enforced.
As the movement to establish the Kyoto Protocol developed momentum, it was necessary for Ken Lay to build up alliances with the green movement including Greenpeace. A 1998 letter, signed by Lay and a few other bigwigs asked President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue, because these individuals were standing in Enrons way. The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to moderate the political aspects of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission. The purpose of this commission was clear high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Setting up a panel to do this was simple; just look at the recent issue of Scientific American where four attack dogs were called out to chew up Bjorn Lomborg. He had the audacity to publish The Skeptic Environmentalist demonstrating that global warming is overblown. David Bellamy, the worlds foremost environmentalist also stepped out of line with his widely printed article Global Warming? What a load of old Poppycock. In the same way Galileo was forced to publicly utter that the moon had no effect on tides, so Bellamy under pressure backtracked on some of his claims.
Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists that Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed. One of Enrons major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony. Recently he published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicting exactly the same inconsequential amount of warming in the next 50 years as the scientists that Enron wanted to gag. They were a decade ahead of NASA.
True to its plan, Enron never made its own findings public, self-censoring them while it pleaded with the Bush administration for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions that it could broker. That pleading continues today the remnant-Enron still views global warming regulation as the straw that will raise it from its corporate oblivion. Some greenie campaigning in America is still directed from this source. On July 7, 2004, Kenneth Lay was indicted by a federal grand jury for his involvement in the scandal.
Everyone knows that a few hundred votes in Florida tipped the election to George W, but few are aware that West Virginia, normally a Democrat stronghold, went for Bush because the coal industry in that state decided to back him because he would not endorse Kyoto. Without West Virginia, the vote in Florida would have made no difference.
Enron stood to profit millions from global warming energy-trading schemes, said Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association and American Coal Coalition. The investigation into the collapse of Enron will reveal much more about the intricacies of the Baptist-bootlegger coalition which was promoting the Kyoto cause within the Republican Party and within US business circles. Coal-burning utilities would have had to pay billions for permits because they emit more CO2 than do natural gas facilities. That would have encouraged closing coal plants in favor of natural gas or other kinds of power plants, driving up prices for those alternatives. Enron, along with other key energy companies in the so-called Clean Power Group El Paso Corp., NiSource, Trigen Energy, and Calpine would make money both coming and going from selling permits and then their own energy at higher prices. If the Kyoto Protocol were ratified and in full force, experts estimated that Americans would lose between $100 billion and $400 billion each year. Additionally, between 1 and 3.5 million jobs could be lost. That means that each household could lose an average of up to $6,000 each year. That is a lot to ask of Americans just so large energy companies can pocket millions from a regulatory scheme. Moreover, a cost of $400 billion annually makes Enrons current one-time loss of $6 billion look like pocket change. Little wonder Americans and the incoming Bush administration did not want a bar of it.
In NZ the Labour government was forced to agree to the Kyoto Protocol because the Alliance Party self destructed and Labour needed the Greens for support in Confidence and Supply. The cost of that support was agreement to GE legislation and the Kyoto Protocol. Labour could see that the GE debate had no financial return, but the carbon credit trading game looked much more promising. Positive credit-trading with all our trees acting as CO2 sinks made politicians see dollar signs. But just as Enron came unstuck mired in financial ruin and scandal, so too is the Kyoto Protocol set to ruin economies and bring down governments and any players foolish enough to be taken in. Enron collapsed in a quagmire of bribery, misinformation, energy price manipulation and the use of political connections to exert pressure on energy boards. Anything connected to the Kyoto Protocol will turn out to be good money after bad, because a scheme instigated by half-truths and hype must eventually collapse under the weight of the spin of its own cover-up. The half-billion dollar debt NZ now owes could be just the beginning. In 2002 Helen Clark said Climate change is a global problem ..the Kyoto Protocol is the international communitys response to climate change and New Zealand is playing its part.
This contrasted strongly with Enrons own internal report expressing doubt that global warming was real. It is hard to accept that Clark does not know that the Protocol only became real through Enron. Real problems are the gullibility of satellite western economies, the dangers of being the tail of giant corporate dogs and the perceived need to appease the EU for trade deals. Global warming itself does not even get a look in. In NZ the only funding for environmental research comes to the NZ Climate Change Office for the Ministry for the Environment and is funded through the Ministry of Fisheries and the Public Good Science & Technology fund.
The particular institute concerned has all the appearance of an independent research body whilst at the same time proclaiming to be spokespeople for government policies re the environment. In this way debate is suppressed in NZ, because there is no funding for alternative viewpoints, no panel for review or accountability of government-science agendae and no voice of balance in government-funded public media. I suggest you look out the window to see if there is any catastrophe happening. While looking, check to see if any ocean is yet rising. Also look up exactly where is this methane cloud? Please, someone, explain how heavier-than-air car emissions can get 6-8 miles up where weather is generated? We are not all that taken in.
Despite all the handwringing and increasingly desperate hysteria, where global warming is concerned there has been a failure to force this paranoid religion onto the world. Since the Rio Conference in 1992, the greens have tried using the threat of global warming to induce Protestant guilt in us all, to cap growth, to change lifestyles, to attack the car, industry and the Great Satan of America. They have lost. Only schoolchildren remain rich fodder willing to believe it is up to them now to Save The World, which hasnt needed saving one iota during the last 4,000,000,000 years or it wouldnt still be here. Now it is surely time to face the facts: there isnt a snowflake-in-hells chance of global warming altering real life. But the failure of the greens is not just with the public. While playing the climate-change card at the G8 Summit, the final Gleneagles declaration shows that the leaders of the developed world have no intention of sacrificing growth and economic success for an ascetic global warming religion. To quote Michael McCarthy, the environment editor of the Independent: The failed agenda that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature and others were complaining of that the US has still not agreed to cut its carbon dioxide emissions was the green groups own agenda, not the British governments.
At G8 the idea of capping greenhouse gas emissions was cleverly replaced by an emphasis on technological innovation and imaginative development. The Kyoto Protocol is effectively dead.
SIDEBAR In NZ almost the only funding for environmental research is invested in NIWA and comes via the NZ Climate Change Office for the Ministry for the Environment, but mostly funded through the Ministry of Fisheries and the Public Good Science & Technology fund. The institute has all the appearance of an independent research body whilst at the same time acting in the appointed role of spokespeople for government policies on the environment. NIWA is a fine organisation when it comes to marine biological research, but when it comes to climate projection theirs must still be only an opinion. Sadly, though, other opinions that might make for lively debate are somewhat suppressed in NZ, because there is no funding for alternatives, no panel for review or accountability of government-science agendae and subsequently no voice of balance across most government-funded public media. Consequently the work of NIWA is perceived in some quarters as having become politicised which is sad for an otherwise valuable and necessary national research resource.
REFERENCES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2002/Feb/20020226Comm007.asp http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26124 http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/EvansEnron.html http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=204 http://ff.org/centers/csspp/opeds/80320040418_landrith.html http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAC72.htm http://www.niwa.co.nz/pubs/ar/2004/14ncc.pdf
Ironic that the big corporate money was behind Kyoto. Relatively, it was a very tiny amount that industry put to be skeptical of global warming.
When will NPR next remind people of that St. Hansen is/was an Enron flack?
Never I bet.
New Zealand, isn’t that the place where Glaciers are advancing?
“About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPAs $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of todays proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enrons stock to rapidly rise.
Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission.”
This is from an article published 3/16/07 and written earlier; the author had no idea that the Court would declare CO2 a pollutant as it now has.
This should be published worldwide in light of this new fact.
Enron lives on, in many and varied ways.
No doubt about it, Ken Lay was a skilled manipulator, but it is questionable whether even he knew the full extent of the machinations of false entities and shell companies that were formed as a mask for trading equities and obscuring transactions. Apparently many of these have been adopted and adapted by the Gore team, as a way to “justify” their actions as being “green”. The burning of fossil fuels in not reduced in any way, shape or manner, but RESPONSIBILITY for burning these fuels is shifted from those who benefit most from this exploitation, to those who can be duped into agreeing to this nonsense, by buying or selling “carbon offsets”.
It is to boggle the mind, that Al Gore, unable to get traction on anything else, has turned to these tactics to rationalize his very existence on this planet.
And it matters not whether it was Enron, or the Greenies, who employ this strategy, it is still a huge fraud.
Hence, time to start making deals and compromises with environmental wackos to get them to shut up about global warming!
I think NZ is party to the Pacific initiative to sell high tech to India and china.
Another case where it’s wise to “follow the money”.
"One of Enrons major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony."
You mean this James Hansen?
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration."
-- James Hansen, stated in presentation to Council on Environmental Quality, June 12, 2003
“and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration.”
In other words, energies Hansen’s masters were NOT invested in.
Subject: Protect technological civilization. Fight global warming alarmists.
Hi Mr. Johnson,
I received my Ph.D. from the Biological Sciences Division of the University of Chicago in 2001. I did my thesis and post-doctoral work in neurobiology. I have been following environmental affairs now since the early 1970's. I am appalled at the sheer level of hysteria over global warming that is being fomented through the news broadcasts and in popular science venues. This dwarfs anything seen in the great cancer scare of the 1970s and it has even less scientific foundation than that.
I urge you not to follow in the footsteps of your predecessor, William Ruckelshaus, who unilaterally banned DDT and brought death and destruction to millions of people throughout the lesser-developed world.
It is known that global temperatures fluctuate widely throughout geologic time and correlate very closely with fluctuating solar output. It is known that global atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate widely throughout geologic time and almost inversely correlate with fluctuating global temperatures (increased CO2 lags increased temperature by up to 800 years). It is known that both current CO2 levels and global temperatures are low compared to previous levels in geologic and human history. It is known that when global temperatures are higher human activity and population increases because the weather is more clement and supportive of increased agriculture. It is known that increased levels of CO2 support crop growth. Based on geological and historical records, it is known that a warmer earth is more beneficial for humans than a colder earth.
Since there is no mechanism whereby increasing and decreasing CO2 levels can affect solar output, the most likely cause/effect scenario is increased solar output leading to increased global temperatures leading to increased CO2 levels and increased human activity.
Since we are already in the latter part of the longest (and coolest) of the last 5 interglacial periods and are more likely than not, based on historical precedent, to be reentering a long period of cooling, and since in this event we will need the advanced technologies and sciences to devise ways to cope with decreasing harvests and more severe weather and climate that characterize a colder global temperature, we need to avoid situations that could adversely impact our current level of technological advancement. Tight regulation of a minor greenhouse gas that comes from activity foundational to modern society could choke the scientific innovation we'll need to meet the challenges of a cooler world.
Because of this, I urge you to resist this latest political assault on advanced Western technology that lies at the heart of the current expression of the modern environmentalist ideology. As mentioned earlier, the previous EPA-led attack on DDT resulted in increased sickness for billions and death for millions. The crusade against CO2 promises to make this outcome minuscule in comparison.
Here, here. Nice letter.
THAT, I didn't know! Bump for later reading.
Gore’s carbon credits are as phony as the Nigerian e-mail scam. Sooner or later someone will investigate what happened to the carbon credit dollars and find they lined the pockets of a few people probably including Gore and that no trees were planted, windmills built or anything else environmental was done.
Read later. Thanks for posting good information.
Thanks for posting.
Wow. Wish I would have read this when it first came out. Potentially another ‘unholy alliance’. This one between Duped Environmentalist and their Sugar Daddy Corporate Overlords.
And the Goron apparently now has 'no controlling legal authority'.
New!!: Dr. John Rays
Please ping me if you find one Ive missed.
OKSooner and I are doing the POGW
ping list while xcamel is on vacation.
Did you see the last Limbaugh letter? Rush on the cover like Moses with the staff doing away with all of the Gorebull Warning BS?
But some other anonymous person came up with this great piece of art work too:
Tipper Gore herself did that. Let's be honest...how many wives on FR wish their husbands were eaten by a shark? Raise your hands. Don't be shy.
Enron helped to start carbon credit trading.
Margaret Thatcher helped to promote CO2 as a pollutant early on within England because she wanted to promote the Nuclear Power industry.
Rush can’t do EVERYTHING. He would be the first to tell you that. You and I have to do it for ourselves. Personal responsibility and self government is tough gig.
The Enron scam escaped everyone. Including the...
Forget I said it.
Here is the list (I found the pockets:<)
Gore doesn'tt buy carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks
It would make a great movie.
That’s a good one. Though I pity the shark after ingesting the lard ass.
I mean if their organization is that great, haven’t we already lost?
This conspiracy crap is starting to get loonier and loonier and the momentum toward action moves faster and faster.
My advice: stop arguing about the weather and recognize that we need to find logical and market-based mechanisms to release less carbon. All we are talking about is higher efficiency and perhaps slightly more expensive energy. Americans have shrugged off the cost at the pump. Double the price of gas, double efficiency and the only ones who suffer are our friends in Russia, Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
My advice: stop arguing about the weather and recognize that we need to find logical and market-based mechanisms to release less carbon.
Your advice is exactly in line with the current strategy used by the left: assert that the debate is over and pretend the only thing to do now is to initiate massive industrial setbacks through penalties, fines and taxes.
When the left tells me that the debate over a HYPOTHESIS is no longer in dispute, I must conclude their motive is a hidden agenda and their statement a lie.
Whatever they do, the left cannot admit global warming is neither human induced nor catastrophic. The funny thing is that the global warming scam is quickly becoming a massive sinkhole for the left, and by the time this is over they will have incurred massive credibility damage. I wonder which will be more painfulthe internal, narcissistic injury from having believed such nonsense or the loss of external gain as carbon credits, research grants and political power go out the window.
In short, I am fascinated by the question of how the left will weasel their way out of this one.
RE: Your letter to Mr. Johnson - Awesome! May I use it?
A site I have frequented often and which has added to my understanding of the science.