Great work, Story of Stuff team! Its so important to cut through the fog and all the detail, the ‘scenery’, and get to the core of this issue in a way people can understand. I recently posted a conference presentation I wrote which makes this connection between stuff and climate change [and other issues like stress, debt, quality of life]:

http://opaleye.blogspot.com/2009/08/consumption-paradox.html

‘There is currently a great deal of concern about climate change, carbon targets, emissions trading…but we are not burning the calorific legacy of fossil fuels as an end in itself. We burn fossil fuels to grow, harvest, mine, transport, manufacture, use and dispose of stuff.’

Also great to see the term ‘ecological debt’ used – this kind of thinking can set up an interesting negotiating dynamic:

http://opaleye.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-kind-of-debt.html

A colleague of mine [www.butterflygeneration.org] recently expressed sustainability as the ‘art of living well within the limits of the world’ – I hope that an upcoming ‘Story’ is one that now links the Story of Stuff/Cap & Trade to the question of growth economics, currently being seriously questioned in a wide range of places, particularly in Europe.

Once again, great work on the concise and clear Story of Cap and Trade message, and its affectionate touches of humour even for such a serious subject.

Cheers from Australia,
Sharon

I have read that CO2 stays in the air for a half-life of about 200 years. Can anyone give me a reference for this, or some more correct value?

Because if this is true, we earthlings are in a bad way indeed. Even if we stopped all burning of carbon today, the earth would continue warming for some years to come. And, realistically, we can’t stop today because we depend on fossil fuels to produce our food, heat our homes and make and transport our goods.

To stop burning carbon we must build a new infrastructure. That will take decades, and making all the new “stuff” will mean burning more carbon. So we are going to go on burning carbon for a long time, and things will be getting hotter. Maybe for the rest of our lives.

Someone, please tell me why I’m wrong about this.

Carbon isn’t the only thing that needs reduction. ALL consumption needs to be reduced. The simplest, most effective solution would be to pass the FairTax bill (sales tax to replace income taxes) and DOUBLE it (at least). People drive the destruction of the planet when they buy stuff. The only solution is to reduce how much stuff they buy at the place they make their decisions: the price tag.
Cap and Trade, EPA rules, corporate taxes, wars for oil, etc., are all hidden from the individuals who buy stuff. Most people are working too much and were undereducated ON PURPOSE so that they become patriotic consumers; too tired and ignorant to know what they are doing. The only things they know are their wages and their bills. ALL current systems (fines and income taxes and tariffs) get shifted to the consumer sooner or later. Better to put the costs up front from the beginning to reduce the motivation for growth and consumption.

Yes – our consumerism and waste are affecting the planet.
Yes – we need to really think about how we use [not use] the resources of our wonderful planet.
Yes – we should be doing everything we can to reduce toxic waste.
Yes – there are facts about CO2 levels and greenhouse gases.
BUT it’s all about how you read those facts and interpret them!
It’s been the same throughout history.
If you are determined to find the facts to back up your cause… you’ll find them… somewhere!
Global warming has more to do with the giant ball of burning gas in the sky than whether i switch off my tv at night time.
you may have seen this but it’s worth watching as another viewpoint rather than just listening to those who shout loudest!!
Great Global Warming Swindle

Good video, and I’m happy to be supporting it, although it left out what is to my mind the most damning criticism of cap and trade schemes like the EU emissions trading scheme – they are not only a distraction from real solutions, but actually used as a valid reason for avoiding them:

“One of the main objections of government to meeting the renewables target . . . is that it will undermine the role of the European emission trading scheme. . . . “[Meeting the EU's target of 20% of energy being renewable] crucially undermines the scheme’s credibility … and reduces the incentives to invest in other carbon technologies like nuclear power”, say leaked UK government documents”
- The Guardian, Labour’s plan to abandon renewable energy targets, 23 October 2007, http://tinyurl.com/2fbdkk

Wow. Very interesting. I never heard of this side of the cap-and-trade program before.

I am 100% in agreement with you that the government needs to take charge. Currently, the government takes punitive measures towards polluters but this system doesn’t seem to be working so well. Since we’re all energy users, perhaps we need to change our attitude and shoulder the burden. Could we set up a Department of Air and fund it through an “ecology fee” in our electric bill? Maybe we’ll be better off if all the fees collected could be used to retrofit dirty power plants, build mass transit systems (so we depend less on cars in cities at least) or fund renewable sources of energy.

Great Vid!
Your right we must think big!

You should get behind the Venus Project!

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

Thanks : Larry

Congratulations, Annie! Once again, you have hit the nail on the head. Great work showing how the same folks who are proposing “Cap and Trade” are the special interests and weak-minded well-meaning people that brought us the sub-prime mortgage disaster and who are destroying both the American and global economies with their greed and stupidity.

Yeah, just wait for the “free market” to solve our environmental problems. Imbeciles! They also told us that the “free market” would prevent any subprime disaster, the dot.com bubble and the real estate bubble. So much for the track record of these scrooges who make billions off of our suffering and tragedies.

Annie (& the team)!

That is super again! Congratulations and very well done!
I have already started to spread the link.

Bob

Hi Annie
A great little film full of information.

I to wonder about the effect of an extra 80 million humans per year competing for natural resources on our little planet.
If humans were any other species, and were causing damage to a farmer’s crop to the same degree as we are damaging the planet, then we would have been sprayed long ago.

The greenosphere is all abuzz about a new video from Annie Leonard, creator of semi-famous anti-consumerism video/book The Story of Stuff. It’s being billed as a definitive debunking of cap-and-trade, but it’s more like a perfect representation of all the confusion and misplaced focus that plagues the green left right now. Here it is:

Now, I suppose I’m generally viewed among greens as a defender of cap-and-trade—or, in the less charitable version, a defender of the “party line,” a shill for the administration, a sell-out “insider,” whatever. A “pro” in the “pro vs. anti cap-and-trade” argument. But that’s not how I see it. It’s more that I think it’s the wrong argument. Activists like Leonard are just mis-identifying the barriers to effective climate action. I’ll have lots more to say on that subject soon, but for now, let’s focus on the video.

The video contains four basic arguments against cap-and-trade:

1. Allowance giveaways are bad. This is true. It would be better to auction 100% of the pollution allowances and use the revenue to invest in clean energy and protect consumers. The bill in Congress gives away too many allowances (Leonard elides the fact that the bulk of them are devoted to consumer protection, though it’s open to debate whether they’ll be used that way, and some Senators are pushing for more giveaways).

The most obvious solution to this is to give away fewer allowances. Yet Leonard and crew imply that allowance giveaways are inherent to cap-and-trade and the only solution is to ditch it. They imply that other “real” solutions would somehow be immune to polluters seeking loopholes and special favors, but never explain why.

The allowance giveaways in the climate bill reflect the power of the fossil fuel lobby. Switching policies would not diminish that power. Reduce that power and any climate policy gets better. The policy isn’t the problem; the power of the fossil fuel lobby is.

2. Offsets are bad. Leonard’s “argument” against offsets, if it can be called that, is fairly typical for this genre. She highlights a few ridiculous-sounding projects from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), implicitly conflates those projects and the CDM with offsets generally, and then concludes, based on the anecdotes, that offsets are bad and they make cap-and-trade toothless.

The reality is far more complex. The quality of offset projects varies widely, as do enforcement mechanisms. The bill in Congress actually contains some fairly stringent measures for policing offsets. Many people close to international policy negotiations believe that high-quality offsets are a vital measure enabling a stronger international treaty. (See Glenn Hurowitz.) Many think that emissions reductions will prove cheap enough that offsets won’t be extensively utilized in early years. Others think that moving emission reductions overseas short-sells the clean energy revolution needed here in the U.S.

These are complex topics, and they’re not well-served by the simplistic, hand-waving dismissal of offsets in Leonard’s video. Regardless, if you think offsets are a problem, the obvious solution is to reduce the number of offsets. But again, Leonard and crew pretend that offsets are inherent to cap-and-trade and the only solution is to ditch it. Again, they pretend that “real” solutions would be immune to similar loopholes and giveaways.

One more time, from the top: The number of offsets in the climate bill reflects the power of the fossil fuel lobby (and the common impression that reducing emissions will be costly). Switching policies would not diminish that power (or that impression). The policy isn’t the problem; the power of the fossil fuel lobby is.

3. Carbon markets are bad. I hesitate to call this an “argument” in the video, since it mainly consists of using the words “Enron,” “bubble,”“Wall Street,” and “scam” suggestively, without saying anything at all specific about why this commodity market—which would be one of any number of commodity markets, most of which work perfectly well, including the carbon market in Europe—would be uniquely evil. I’m with Kevin Drum: there’s no meat here. I’ve never seen anything to this argument but the kind of suggestive handwaving that’s in the video. I don’t know why the green left has decided that markets are bad, in and of themselves, but it seems both politically unwise and substantively thin.

It’s certainly true that certain financial instruments should be eliminated or regulated more heavily; this is true for financial markets in general. There’s some fairly strong language in the bill about regulating carbon markets; that language will likely be folded into the larger financial market reforms that the Senate will address soon. But no one, outside this narrow topic, is suggesting that markets should be abolished!

Remember, trading of allowances is the feature of cap-and-trade that makes it more flexible than a flat tax that applies to all entities equally. This was always the argument for C&T over a tax. Instead of rebutting that argument, Leonard et al. seem instead to have decided that “market Goldman Sachs derivatives bugga bugga!” suffices.

4. Cap-and-trade is a “distraction” from “real solutions.” Of all the arguments, this is, forgive my bluntness, the silliest. The idea is that cap-and-trade has (for reasons never explained) magically come to dominate the policy conversation and made people forget about other options. “Cap-and-trade makes citizens think everything will be OK if we just drive a little less, change our light bulbs, and let These Guys do the rest.” Whaaat? It does? Any empirical evidence for this? Polls? Surveys? Anything? Honestly, it’s a depressing hallmark of liberalism to view progress—or the impression of progress—as a deflating force. Over on the other side of the aisle, they’re constantly declaring victory. Why do we think they do that? Does it seem to be de-motivating the conservative base?

First of all, there are reasons cap-and-trade has garnered the most support, but C&T bashers are so busy attacking a caricature they can’t see them. Second of all, what is the sociopsychological theory here supposed to be? If we just stopped talking about cap-and-trade, everyone would wake, as though from mysterious trance, and start talking about “real” solutions? The only reason the world hasn’t come together around tough measures that would financially damage fossil fuel companies is that the world’s citizens are, like kittens, distracted by the shiny cap-and-trade bauble?

This is the worst feature of the C&T bashers (and carbon tax advocates): their utter political naivete and Romanticism. There’s no plausible story about power here, and no real effort to tell one. It’s just: “Once everyone hears our clever arguments, the world will unite around Real Solutions!” It’s irresponsible.

The video concludes by saying, “the next time somebody tells you cap-and-trade is the best we’re going to get, don’t believe them.” But why not? Literally nothing in the video even addresses that point! It’s a fundamentally political point that the video just wishes away. At this point the green left desperately needs less Mead and more Machiavelli. Unless greens get serious about identifying the loci of political and financial power, identifying ways to block or leverage that power, and building power of their own, they’re going to lose. Policy arguments are more-or-less orthogonal to that important undertaking, not a substitute for it.

———

There are also some straight-up errors in the video. Europe’s trading system is working, despite relentless hype to the contrary. Any program that caps and reduces CO2 would help those hurt by climate change, even if the money was distributed inequitably. The Clean Air Act does not enable EPA to “cap” carbon the same way cap-and-trade does, and would not serve as an equally effective substitute for a cap. Etc etc.

But my larger critique is that the video, and the bashing of cap-and-trade generally, just misses the point. I’ve got longer posts on this coming up, but here’s a capsule summary: it’s clear that politics as currently constituted, particularly in the U.S., will not tolerate a high price on carbon. So we’re going to end up with a fairly low price, hopefully with mechanisms to automatically raise it over time. A different carbon pricing mechanism won’t solve that problem.

The smart response would be to secure the low-and-rising carbon price and then start pushing other emission reduction policies, namely sector-specific regulations, industrial policies focused on capacity building, and large-scale investments in RD&D. If all the C&T bashers would turn their energy in that direction, we’d be having a much more productive conversation. Instead they’re echoing arguments from Exxon and Don Blankenship, vaguely hoping that if cap-and-trade is politically destroyed, a herd of ponies will thunder in to replace it. Once and for all: there are no ponies

Congratulations Annie. This is great work. As a Sri Lankan, living in an island nation we definetely need to promote real solutions to climate change rather than promoting business oriented Cap and trade type of solution. People in the developed countries need to truly sacrifice for the overconsumption of the environmnetal space in the past and make real solutions by reducing actual carbon emissons but not trading.

Solicito amablemente una traducciòn de la pelìcula al Español Gracias.

Renton de Alwis Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Ayubowan! from Sri Lanka

By the way Ayubowan our greeting in Sri Lanka means ‘may all living beings on earth have longlife’;not just you or me…

I am a Buddhist .. and the Bhuddist way of life has it that we be not driven by greed but for work on shunning it. But the dominant western based culture that gave us the consumerist models, have it that ‘greed is good’ and having choice within the free price driven economy (market) is the ideal system. The majority of the world had beleived this for centuries and continues to beleive it. Climate change and global warming are the outcomes of this failed belief system.

Cap and trade as I call it is the ‘Pin-Puw’ scheme meaning ‘Merit-Sin’. This is the latest gimmick of the ’sunshine industries’ and you have got it spot on in the movie ‘Cap & Trade’. What Cap and trade is to me is;’You do good and aquire merit, I buy that merit off you for money to sin with it’. What a satanic innovation by those who made the mess in the first place..

It is time that the west looked at Buddhist economics… Mahatma Gandhi’s saying ‘ there is enough on this earth to meet every one’s needs, but not everyones greed’. Thai king has articulated this Bhuddhist thinking as ‘Sufficiency Economics’

We need new thinking, innovative ways and most of all selfless and greedless schemes that are designed to save the world, not schemes that are designed to make money for those who claim to save the world.

More strength to fresh approches and a new paradigm..

From the Indian Ocean island nation of Sri Lanka

Renton de Alwis

It’s completely unrealistic to assume that the government, whichever that may be, will penalise the real polluters. The government is owned by these corporations hence the only apparent alternatives are money makey schemes that reward the corporations that made the problem in the first place without of course getting rid of the problem. As long as there is money to be made a real solution will not be put in place even though clean energy is readily available. If we want to save our planet, stop the wars and end poverty, then it’s time the people unite and take control of our future because no politician is going to do it for us.

Sorry, Annie, I’m NOT like you. You see, I have a pretty strong background in science and engineering, and I know that CO2 is NOT a pollutant. We couldn’t live without it. I also know that the majority of actual scientists (not political scientists) don’t believe that manmade global warming is a threat–if it even exists at all. Perhaps you can tell us why your ‘scientists’ are afraid to have open discussions or debates about their work? Why are you people so quick to dismiss those who don’t share your ‘religion’? After all, that’s what it is–a religion, and a political movement.

Great work again, Annie! Climate skeptics are trotted out to suggest that cap-and-trade is a solution because – hey, they’re against it so it must be good! Yeah, right!

Stepshep above reposts the Grist piece by that guy who loves to dismiss what is needed in favor of his (the Democratic Party leadership’s and the corporate-polluter members of US CAP’s) view of what is possible.

I post these explanations of why he is misguided in thinking that C&T is a possibility we should embrace.

Thanks again, Annie. You did a wonderful job.

MS

MichelleChan Posted 5:55 pm
01 Dec 2009

I think the video does a great job in laying out serious critiques of cap-and-trade. You can’t get too deep in the weeds in a short video, but Leonard’s concerns about carbon markets aren’t just handwaving.

Carbon markets will indeed be subject to broader derivatives reforms, so I can only conclude that Roberts isn’t following the debate over derivatives regulations very closely — because we are losing the battle there. The financial industry has convinced policymakers to open up one loophole after another. For example, leading proposals on mandatory exchange clearing of derivatives have been continuously weakened as the months have passed. Progressive reformers like Prof Michael Greenberger (former head of markets and trading under CFTC Chair Brooksley Born) are not confident that we will emerge from this financial regulatory process having put in place the rules needed to avert the next crisis.

And Leonard’s skepticism about Wall Street is not misplaced; financial policymakers such as the Congressional Oversight Panel on the TARP are trying to be better prepared for the inevitable next crisis. So as we contemplate creating carbon markets from scratch, we can’t ignore the serious lessons from this financial crisis. Such as how sophisticated our modern financial markets are, how regulators will be unable to stay ahead of “financial innovation,” and (sadly) how even the best-written regs erode in effectiveness over time.

Indeed, carbon markets are not just going to be simple derivatives trading — even though carbon is an immature market, it is already being marketed as a new asset class, and financial engineers have created carbon exchange traded funds, carbon backed securities and other financial products to sell. Last year, one bank bundled together a bunch of offset projects at various stages of UN approval, grouped them into tranches, and sold them as securities. That took a lot of estrogen to package asset-backed securities during the height of the financial bailouts. And if you think that it was difficult to analyze the risk of a few thousand US mortgages, just think how hard it will be years from now to analyze the risks of hundreds of offset projects from Ecuador to Indonesia.

A final point: while we need to draw lessons from the financial crisis, we also can’t assume that carbon is going to be just like any other commodity out there (and by the way, some commodity markets aren’t working that great — check out stopgamblingonhunger.com). Policymakers are designing carbon markets to be pretty complex, and the more complex it is, the easier it is to game and the harder it is to regulate. Can you think of any other commodities market with free give-aways and a point at which the sole producer will automatically flood the market with more product if the price hits a trigger price? (If I were Goldman Sachs, I’d rally up the price of carbon, hit the trigger price, and ta-da! Instant demand for offsets from the two offsets companies I own! The govt might even be forced to buy my crappy offsets, since they need to defend the price of carbon…)

Leonard didn’t get too far into the weeds given her short format and neither will I. So for people who are interested, they can check out: http://www.foe.org/global-warming/carbon-markets

Michelle Chan, Friends of the Earth

Charles Komanoff Posted 7:00 pm
01 Dec 2009

It’s sad, David, to see someone as smart and passionate as you still riding cap-and-trade down to its almost certain demise, unable to muster much more than the defeatist “The policy isn’t the problem; the power of the fossil fuel lobby is.”

Wrong. The policy is the problem. The policy — a complex, easily corruptible, hard to grasp (“Most of the country doesn’t know what cap-and-trade is. They have no idea. I would say half the Senate have no idea what cap-and-trade is and could not explain it.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller, in Chairmen Split Over Climate Bill, The Hill, Nov. 17), and ill-suited system — is a huge part of the reason that the fossil fuel lobby has been able to rout the pro-climate forces and run the table.

How can you build and sustain the kind of popular movement you need to beat the fossil fuel lobby around something as ungainly as cap-and-trade? And of course the more the FF lobby carves out huge new subsidies and giveaways, the more complex and corrupt the cap-and-trade bills become, further weakening the pro-climate forces and running the table again, and again.

More defeatism: “[I]t’s clear that politics as currently constituted, particularly in the U.S., will not tolerate a high price on carbon. So we’re going to end up with a fairly low price, hopefully with mechanisms to automatically raise it over time. A different carbon pricing mechanism won’t solve that problem.” Wrong again. A transparent carbon tax would have a real shot at keeping the revenues away from special interests (by which I mean the whole gamut from nukes and “clean coal” to renewables and efficiency) and reserving them for distribution to American families. That’s how you get the carbon price to rise steeply. You commit to the dividend and stick with it. Households are kept whole and the bugaboo of unaffordably higher fuel prices finally goes away.

When you write, “This is the worst feature of the C&T bashers (and carbon tax advocates): their utter political naivete and Romanticism,” you’re talking about me, aren’t you? “Utter political naivete” indeed! In my life I’ve won, or helped win, more than my share of big eco battles, many of them ostensibly hopeless, and I don’t appreciate being labeled a naive Romantic, okay?

Naivete is thinking you can slip a 1,400-page bill through Congress that purports to restructure the American economy, without a popular movement behind you. Naivete is thinking you can build a popular movement around cap-and-trade. Naivete is thinking that undemocratic Big Green groups cuddling up to big business and big finance can lead us to climate salvation. Naivete is thinking that the universal loathing of Wall Street now abroad in the land will have no impact on how cap-and-trade is perceived popularly and politically.

Cap-and-trade is dead, David. Time to turn the page and build a popular movement for a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

China, the biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, offered last week to lower its CO2 output relative to the size of its economy while the U.S., the second-worst polluter, pledged to cut its carbon emissions by 2020. Scientists have said, based on forecasts of rising sea levels Glaciers and ice sheets are melting in Antarctica and Greenland and ocean water occupies more volume the warmer it is. – Nikki

First of all, thanks so much for producing both The Story of Stuff and Cap and Trade. They are Both really easy to understand and helpful for explaining these issues.

I think you are so right to recognize that consumption, waste, are all tied into climate change problems. Many people are under the impression that climate change is a problem for the future, and a potentially false one at that.

The U.S. economic crisis of the last few years occurred partially because most Americans are in debt – living off borrowed money and labour. They are in this position because we live in a society were we are constantly compelled to buy and where each of us produced too much waste.

Or take another angle: health care. We have smog warnings that tell us to stay inside because the air quality is so poor, and yes we still don’t think the problems of pollution are effecting us?

We need to see these problems as they are, connected, complicated and requiring our absolute attention.

This is a great debate……but debate is only part of the issue. What we need too is action and so check out http://www.webmarch.com where we are having a go at assisting the process of all of us concerned citizens having a go at some action. We also have a VERY worhty project in South Africa you can donate to and actually DO something as well as talk. Bottom line for me is that the root of many of our collective challenges is our maazing collective apathy about action and the fact that the leaders will NOT be doing what we want but what other lobby goups pressurise them to do. Mostly that’s big business….

Kudos my dear. That was a brilliant little piece of animation. I expect only further disappointment from governments, pay-for-play scientists, and the captains of industry, but I’m working on lightening up.

Cunsumption!! No stupid gifts this Christmas ok people!

Hi Annie,
Although I am in full agreement with the need for a reduction in consumerism, and the pollution that goes along with it, and agree that the ‘Cap and Trade’ idea is jut another way for financiers to profit at our expense, I must disagree with your contention that ‘carbon’ or more properly CO2 is a pollutant. This idea has been promoted for too long, even though there is not a scrap of proven, scientific evidence for such. The Sun is the reason for major changes in Earths temperature, along with all the weather events. We can do nothing about the Suns behavior, only be ready for the often rapid changes in our environment. At present, there is a major solar event happening that, if it continues, will lead to a rapid cooling of the planet, which is a much more serious threat to all of us than a rise in temperature. Al Gore was warning us all of global cooling in the mid 70s, then when things warmed up, he jumped ship to global warming, and, if I am correct, he will jump ship back to global cooling, as soon as the evidence for cooling becomes obvious.
I think it very important that you distance yourself from the CO2 scaremongers, and concentrate on the real problem, which IS the destruction of our world by the slow poisoning from consumerism.

Can’t wait to see your latest…. Phillip Zimbardo says the the sames techniques that got us to be this numbed masses forking over all our assets can be used to make good citizens also….

I was wondering about some examples of how this might come to be… If women got to smoke cause of Bernays “freedom sticks” what might we use to fix obesity, savings, and the return to caring for our neighbor like ourselves… thanks L.

I love you Annie Leonard. Should you have a thing for COFs (Crusty Old Farts), I’m yours, goddess!

Whenever a corrupt movement or process comes into being, it is good to look into the preexisting system THEY have put in place.

In the case of the latest financial scam known as cap-and-trade, one need only look at those climate exchanges around the planet, owned by a holding company registered in the Isle of Man, Climate Exchange PLC.

And who owns this holding company? Why, none other than Goldman Sachs, ICE and the oil cartel. And who owns ICE (InterContinental Exchange)? Why, none other than Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the oil cartel.

The Climate Exchange PLC owns the following: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), European Climate Exchange (ECX), Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFX), Insurance Futures Exchange (IFEX), and is involved in joint ventures with Monteal Climate Exchange (MCeX) and Tiajin Climate Exchange (China).

The clearing house which most likely will be used for said carbon derivatives will be the recently established ICE US Trust, which is owned by: ICE, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS and the MarkIt Group. The MarkIt Group was orginally financed by, and still thought to be covertly owned by, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America.

And to repeat, ICE itself is owned by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the oil cartel.

The major clearing company (largest in existence) which may also be involved in this is DTCC (35% ownership – New York Stock Exchange, remaining ownership – Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Credit Suisse).

See where I’m going with this? Then congratulations!

And please keep in mind this isn’t the only financial scam in the works, this “public option” will mandate the forced purchase of private health insurance by the citizenry (coverage??) while establishing an insurance exchange(s).

And what will be traded and speculated on those exchanges? The latest batch of securitized derivatives, mortality derivatives, mortality-linked securities, q-Forwards and mortality swaps.

A short while ago there were only a handful of healthcare hedge funds; today there exists over 90 healthcare hedge funds.

Why is that crucial? Because the hedge fund is the financial construct utilized for superleveraged speculation.

The Big Picture — the disassembling of the American economy — and the massive transfer of wealth by ANY MEANS POSSIBLE!

Thanks again to Ms. Leonard and her crew!!!!!!

Annie Leonard’s insight about cap and trade being a distraction is absolutely true, particularly when realizing that any discussion about a viable use of fossil fuels is a distraction, because 100% of ALL U.S. energy needs could be provided by the current photovoltaic technology that exists today. A true fact is that 128 miles X 128 miles of photovoltaic modules placed over a “solar-rich” area — like that in the Southwest desert of New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California — could be the non-emitting, non-polluting source of electricity for the entire U.S. Wind energy could also be used to supplement the irregular photovoltaic source (solar generates primarily during sunlight and wind generates best at night), but energy storage could also smooth out electrical supplies. How to smooth out solar energy is just a “small” detail because photovoltaics can substitute for all fossil fuels today (that is if all transportation converts to electric). Any discussion of acceptable energy sources that emit green-house gases is just a distraction!

I would really like to see the EPA-OBD II Annual Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law closely examined and changed.As it stands right now, it is entirely possible for any Gasoline powered Vehicle from 1996 to the present to fail it’s Emissions Inspection, for not emitting enough polluting Exhaust Emissions ! All such Vehicles have on board Oxygen [O2] Exhaust Sensors.These O2 Sensors are set up to detect a level of polluting Exhaust Emissions that would indicate that Gasoline is being consumed by an Engine at 14.7 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel.If there is a low level of Oxygen, and a high level of Pollution, a Vehicle will fail it’s Emissions Inspection as well it should.But Gasoline can be safely vaporized into a mixture that is 100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel.With this, even the largest SUV could easily get 50 + MPG and emit a fraction of the Emissions of a conventional 14.7/1 Fuel System, with an increase in Power, and much longer Engine life.I’m not the first to figure this out.Far from it ! For proof, do a search on [the late] Tom Ogle, and Charles Nelson Pogue.Then, go to http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html and scan down the page to just before the update.But even if it is not to be believed that Fuel Vaporization is entirely possible, it’s illegal to even attempt to do so with any Vehicle from 1996 to the present.O2 Sensors are set up to detect that Fuel is being consumed at 14.7/1. A mixture of 100 / 1 will not emit enough Polluting Exhaust Emissions to register on O2 Sensors.When such a Vehicle is connected to an OBD II Emissions Inspection Analyzer, an O2 Sensor Failure Code will be generated, which will result in a failed Emissions Inspection.O2 Sensor Exemptions are permitted for Vehicles that have been legally converted to operate on Natural Gas, Propane, or Hydrogen, and are Registered as such.But not for vaporized Gasoline.Thus, it is entirely possible under this EPA-OBD II Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law for any Gasoline powered Vehicle from 1996 to the present to fail it’s Emissions Test for not emitting enough polluting Exhaust Emissions ! As long as this insane 14.7/1 Law that only benefits Big Oil remains in effect, the only way to make Vehicles more “efficient” will be to make them lighter, and smaller.This has got to change ! I have asked the Question many times ; “Why is it illegal for any Gasoline powered Vehicle from 1996 to the present to emit too little polluting Exhaust Emissions”? So far, not one Big Oil Executive, Politician, or Concerned Environmentalist can, or will answer the Question.Those that have bothered to reply can’t seem to come up with an Answer either.Can you ?

The people behind this are not concerned about us average people, let alone the earth. They want to fill their pockets at everyones’ expense. Eventually, all such tyrants see their demise. We are already seeing the breakdown of our economy and healthcare. The dollar is losing value. Our children are fighting someone else’s war against at our expense. Pay attention to who is gaining from all of this. Pay attention to where they come from and what is their agenda. The innocent always get oppressed. Who is being oppressed here? Think people. Use your brains. Remember, that’s what they don’t want you to do.

To the skeptics of the reality upon us.
fossil fuel will run out. The question is not should we change our practices, the question is when, as it will be a necessity sooner or latter.
Faced with the risks of changing now (no risk) or latter (end of the world as we know it) what’s the issue, apart from fossil company profit?
Knowing Exxon-Mobil fund climate skeptic groups, whats the chances a few of these funded people have posted here?
I like the “we need carbon dioxide” comment. (don’t worry, I am pretty strong in science and technology also) We need water to live, but people can still drown. No one is talking about removing it all. How long will it take to “build the infrastructure” Putting solar panels on the roof (about 2 years carbon payback) does not take decades. Getting on a bike, Growing food in the back yard, Going for a walk instead of going and buying a new product you don’t really need does not take decades. Its not too late for anything, except oil companies being a good investment…

I would like everyone to go back and read the post by Stepshep one more time. It is the most eloquent and realistic response to this absurd video i have read.

this was just published by Bloomberg: “By 31 January, 35 parties had proposed quantified emissions reduction targets and mitigation actions for 2020, accounting for 80% of global GHG emissions in 2005. While the high submission rate signalled commitment, the pledges are insufficient to keep global temperature rises within the 2°C limit referenced in the Copenhagen Accord. Bridging the gap would require the EU and Australia to move to the upper end of their target ranges – an unlikely scenario given the US is not expected to pledge at a comparable scale.”- Bloomberg News Feb 12th 2010.

The grim reality is that countries are not willing to make even proposed pledges to reduce emissions to levels that would prevent dangerous climate change. Cap and trade is just a tool, one market based tool that is there to enforce a policy decision. It will never be a perfect market, no market is. The entire country of Greece was just outed for concealing its debt through dodgy accounting practices, if dodgy accounting for an entire country can be concealed for years, imagine how easy it is for a few small landfill owners in brazil to overstate their emissions on their accounting books. Actually it is harder for the landfill owner to do that precisely because he has to be checked by a verifier (DOE) and in turn that verifiers reports are scrutinized by a UN technical panel. Cap and trade is not the problem, as it is depicted in this video. it is one small part of a series of solutions that need to be leveraged to combat climate change and get global emissions down to reasonable levels. This video unfortunately does a diservice by distributing misinformation, and demonizing people, rather than providing a nuanced critique or real solutions.

This is the most amzing thing I have ever seen. Incredible work. I wish I were doing it. I am so impressed – i am truly moved.
Kristin

Your little story is cute.

However, you totally miss the point – CO2 is the RESULT of climate change – not the CAUSE.

Furthermore, your underlying premise is fatally flawed – humans are NOT the cause of climate change – natural earth rhythms & cycles are.

To educate yourself, go to Dr. Edwin X. Berry’s Website at http//:www.climatephysics.com. Dr. Berry is a renowned atmospheric physicist and will set you straight.

You need to direct your energies to ensuring we in the west do not throw away our standard of living in the pursuit of false and irrelevant fixes.

Peter R. McWilliams, B.Sc. (Math & Physics), M.B.A. (Urban Land Economics)

Really good discussion i found here. But true solution. Am still searching. Summer is coming earlier every year, as global temperatures continue to rise. What you think of it? U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide highest rate. When we analyze the ability of increasing technological efficiency to counteract the environmental impacts of increasing population and consumption. Are Americans willing to jeopardize their health with GMO foods? Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You Are Eating (2003), is convinced that they are not, so he started the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America???

Great job getting the message out about how bad is cap and trade. I support a national sales tax, pollution surcharge and recently added a FAT tax. People get to make choices; government must help fund fuel cells and superconductors and clean water. It is not like they can keep this game up as gas is going to sell for $7.50 / gal in 10 years. But with cars that run on hydrogen (fuel cell) and liquid nitrogen (Superconductor Motor) and plug in the batteries, we cut pollution by transportation 40%. Our solar collectors and plugged in car make us money and top $ on peak. Wind is used to make hydrogen along with concentrating solar. What’s your plan?

It seems like everyone has their own oppinion on this subject. I just want a clear cut answer for why our climate is changing. Twenty years ago it was the ozone layer, now it’s something else! What’s going on here?

Don’t be fooled by this cap and trade stuff. It’s simply another means to separate your money from you and to empower government. It’s just more liberal garbage.

Your ideas are brilliant and forward thinking, but they miss the real cause of the pollution problem on this planet. The real problem is over-population. The solution to that is a global ‘birth stop’ for seven years which will reduce all of the demands for fossil fuels and get our planet back to normal. Each time we circle the sun, we add over 199 million new people to this planet. Each one puts a lifetime of consumtion demands on the planet. If earth was a lifeboat…and it is…the addition of too many passengers will sink the boat…even if the boat is as big as the earth.

This really helped me understand about emission trading I am study ethics and have got a debate topic That ” Emission trading schemes are unethical” and i am to support this statment i am not sure where i stand on this issue as i have never really been told much about it i just knew that there were some that supported and those that didnt but if any1 can help and send me any information you may have my email is kfuller90@hotmail.com
any help would be appriciated

K.A. Fuller

I have an invention that will greatly reduce our dependency on fossil fuel!I tried to get in touch with officials from the US DOE; I’m on a waiting list to hear from them.lol! My invention is real and proven, but I’m not sure that the DOE or any other group really want to reduce the fossil fuel dependency!!! I will wait until the end of the month before I take my offer elsewhere.

I am also interested with the environment and its current state. It is the right thing to do to be concern on our environment!

the 1st law states”energy can neither be created nor destroyed.It con only change form.”Energy produced by coal,natural gas,oil,or neclear is changed from one form of matter to another.The attack on these sources of energy is a direct attack on the economic success of America and it is one thatis at a dangerous peak of activity generated by the Obama administration,primarily through the Enviromental Protection Agency.There is simply no souch thing as “dirty energy.”The push for so-called clean or renewable energy is a fiction to advance the use of the two worst,moast unpredictable and unreliable forms of energy solar and wind.They exist solely because of government subsidies and mandates.They produce little over three percent of energy used nationwide every day.If the EPA gains authority to control carbon dioxide,it will literally control all bussness and industrial activity in the nation as well as the lives of all
Americans.

The U.S. economic crisis of the last few years occurred partially because most Americans are in debt – living off borrowed money and labour. They are in this position because we live in a society were we are constantly compelled to buy and where each of us produced too much waste.

You are Amazing!
your work is amazing
your effort, dedication and time is inspiring
and your clarity of thought
is astounding….

Vierte. Solutions. Haben Sie ideea was “saubere Energie bedeutet. ” Haben Sie ideea was EROEI bedeutet? Wissen Sie, dass die meisten Solarzellen oder Windkraftanlagen Betriebe nicht einmal wieder die Energie, mit Bau sie am Ende der Laufzeit verbraucht? Grundsätzlich verbringen Sie viel Energie Ausbildung von Ingenieuren, Gestaltung Energie Farmen, das Verbrennen von Kohle für die Stahlindustrie, brennende Benzin für den Transport von Elektronik aus China, verbrauchen Energie auf die Infrastruktur, Verkabelung, Wartung und so weiter. Am Ende man kaum wieder die Energie Sie investieren, nach 20 oder mehr Jahre “freie Energie” aus dem Wind oder Sonne.