I am so glad this information is finally coming to light. This is precisely why Cap and Trade is a useless and ineffective piece of legislation! The only ones who benefit immensely if this legislation gets passed are the government and the agents that are trading the excess pollution. Oh and of course the industries that would continue polluting. The industries are forced to pay for permits and the extra cost gets passed down to their customers. Thus, the customers are the only ones getting hurt by this measure by having to pay more for goods and services!
It's right there in the title itself, Cap the pollution and Trade the excess. So basically what all the Global Warming nuts with Al Gore at the helm shouting "Cap and Trade, it MUST be passed." haven't bothered reading the legislation and don't have a clue about how it's supposed to work. Well perhaps that is true of the Global Warming followers. However, Al Gore owns one of the trading companies that would make bank if this bill got passed. It's sad to say that Al Gore used his credibilty to influence the world mainly so that he could benefit from the policies he was promoting. He is a con-artist and this is all a sham!
It's right there in the title itself, Cap the pollution and Trade the excess. So basically what all the Global Warming nuts with Al Gore at the helm shouting "Cap and Trade, it MUST be passed." haven't bothered reading the legislation and don't have a clue about how it's supposed to work. Well perhaps that is true of the Global Warming followers. However, Al Gore owns one of the trading companies that would make bank if this bill got passed. It's sad to say that Al Gore used his credibilty to influence the world mainly so that he could benefit from the policies he was promoting. He is a con-artist and this is all a sham!
Al Gore with the help of government officials have outright lied to you. They have told you that this legislation would REDUCE CO2 emmissions, right?! They told you that this legislation is going to help the environment and our air quality, right?! Well let me tell you that that is a bunch of bull crapola! If they really wanted to stop or substantially reduce air pollution, then why don't they simply set an output standard?! You and I have to get a smog check for our cars regularly, I think every two years. That is an output standard that was set for us little people. If our cars don't pass the smog check, then our mechanic makes the necessary repairs so that the car could pass. We cannot get our automobile registration renewed without proving that our car has passed the smog check. Industrial plants should have the same applied to them. But in their case have surprise inspections to make sure they are complying with the new standards set. Why can't somebody invent a filter of some sort that would capture all the toxic output from the smoke stacks? Am I thinking too simply here? I urge you to read this article I've posted below.
***********************************************************************
The Guardian UK
written by Juliette Jowit and Tim Webb
Thursday March 11, 2010 21:10pm GMT
Saved permits can be used to meet future targets to cut emissions WITHOUT REDUCING POLLUTION.
Companies across Europe are hoarding permits to produce greenhouse gas emissions worth hundreds of millions of pounds, the Guardian can reveal.
The surplus credits have been amassed from over-allocation of permits to pollute from the European emissions trading scheme, and by buying cheap credits from carbon-cutting projects in developing countries and holding on to their more expensive official EU allowances.
The saved permits can be used to meet future targets to cut the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming and climate change without actually reducing pollution, or sold for a profit in the future.
Campaigners for tougher emissions reductions said the saved-up allowances discredited the argument of some industries that much deeper cuts in future would be "fatal" because they could no longer afford to compete against rivals outside the EU.
However, companies involved said the banked credits would help them pay to develop new emission-cutting technology, and to meet emissions targets until that became widely available.
Industry also warned it faced "death by a thousand cuts" as a result of the next phase of the scheme, from 2013 and 2020, and other costly environmental legislation planned by government. Business leaders accused the government of being prepared to sacrifice industry to enable other sectors such as aviation to keep polluting and meet the UK's carbon budgets.
One steelmaker told the Guardian: "Officials see us as acceptable collateral in the fight against climate change. If we don't make anything in this country any more, it means people could still fly to Tenerife once a year and the UK will keep within the carbon budget."
He said meeting targets would require vast amounts of steel to build windfarms, nuclear reactors and electric cars. This would have to be imported from more-polluting steelmakers outside Europe if the industry disappeared in the UK.
The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the centrepiece of the EU's pledge to cut greenhouse gases, has already been criticised for giving many companies allowances to emit more emissions than they need, leaving little incentive to reduce pollution, and for lax regulation.
The latest concern about "banking" credits involves companies also buying cheap allowances from "offset" schemes which reduce emissions in other countries, often China and India, and using these to cover their emissions while keeping their official allowances – which are worth more because projects in other countries could in future be banned.
Analysis for the Guardian by campaign group Sandbag of the figures for 2008, the most recent available, looked at the extra allowances accrued by four big sectors: iron and steel, coke ovens, metal ore processing, and cement, which together have 800 installations covered by the trading scheme, and include big names like ArcelorMittal, Thyssenkrupp, Corus, Holcim and Cemex.
If the companies stockpiled over-allocated surpluses for the whole of this phase of the ETS, from 2008-2012 they could be worth as much as €3.2bn at today's prices, said Sandbag. Any more credits released by buying offsets would be on top of that.
"If they [companies] want cashflow, which in the current climate they may, then they'll cash in the allowances," said Bryony Worthington, Sandbag's founder and director. "But if they are thinking long-term then they'll be thinking 'I should probably hold on to them and insulate myself for the future'."
Please click HERE to read the ENTIRE ARTICLE... MUST READ!
No comments:
Post a Comment