Why won’t the Kyoto Protocol die? More than 18,000 scientists have said there is
no human-induced global warming, the United States has withdrawn from
the Protocol, and Japan has announced that it will not enforce emissions
reductions required to meet its targets. Why, then, do Kyoto advocates
insist that the Protocol be ratified and enter into force this year?
In a word, money.
If the U.N.’s climate change initiative was ever motivated by a desire
to affect global climate (and that’s a very big if), that motivation
changed dramatically in the mid-1990s, as independent science continued
to pile up convincing evidence that global climate was not significantly
affected by human activity, and while the mechanisms for almost
incomprehensible cash flows were beginning to take shape: Joint
Implementation, Clean Development Mechanisms, and Certified
Emissions Reduction.
The term “emissions trading” has been used in press reports and U.N.
press releases, but few people grasp the magnitude of a global trading
regime, or the power that the administrative agency would hold over
industry and governments alike.
To understand why the U.N. is unwilling to abandon Kyoto, realize that
the U.N. would be the top dog in the administration of the trading
regime. What this means might be better understood with an
oversimplified example of how the trading scheme might work.
First, a government authority (the U.N.) would impose a limit, or “cap”
on the quantity of CO2 emissions (measured in
metric tons) that could be released into the atmosphere by each
nation, which, in turn, would set the cap for each target industry –
say, for example, the electricity generating industry. The cap would be
calculated by government to achieve the emissions target established by
the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. target is 7 percent below 1990 levels by
the year 2112.
Next, each electricity generator would be analyzed to determine the
quantity of carbon dioxide emissions it released in relation to its electricity
output. Then government would arbitrarily assign a cap to each
generator that must be met by a time certain, under pain of financial
penalty – or worse.
Government would then establish a bureaucracy to measure CO2 reductions and issue Certified Emission Reductions certificates, or CERs.
Suppose, for example, a coal-fired generator produced 50MW of power and
produced 100 metric tons of carbon emissions per year. The government
declares that this plant must reduce its emissions to 90 metric tons per
year. By switching to natural gas, which requires substantial capital
outlay, this same plant might produce the same 50MW of power, but reduce
its emissions to 75 metric tons of carbon, thus meeting its cap and
qualifying for 15 additional CERs.
In another country, another coal-fired generator produces 50 MW of power
and produces 100 metric ton of carbon emissions per year. Instead of
investing the capital to convert to natural gas, the second plant may
choose to buy 10 CERs from the first company and continue producing 100
tons of emissions each year. The seller and the buyer negotiate a
price, thereby creating a “market” for hot air – denominated in metric tons
of carbon emissions.
Non-emitting electricity generators would be eligible to sell CERs at
the same rate as other generators. A wind farm that produced 50MW of
electricity would have 90 CERs to sell.
By investing heavily in natural gas, wind and solar energy sources, all
of which are low, or non-carbon-emitting energy sources, corporations
such as Enron, BP and Shell expect government to provide enormous
stocks of CERs which they could sell on the open market.
Nuclear energy sources, which produce no carbon emissions, would not
qualify for the program, because Kyoto promoters arbitrarily excluded
them.
The global warming industry created by the Kyoto Protocol would
administer the program worldwide. This scheme would generate massive
cash flows, from which bureaucrats (the U.N. and national governments)
could extract taxes, commissions and administration fees. Increased
electricity costs would be passed on to the consumer and would not
affect corporate profits.
Money, or the promise of it, drives the Kyoto Protocol and the global
warming industry it has spawned. No one believes that the Kyoto targets
can be met, nor that even if they were met, that it would have any
significant effect on the climate. It is the money, pure and simple.
It can be extremely profitable to sell hot air, especially when mandated
by the government.
Some of the largest corporations in the world are heavily invested in
the Kyoto Protocol as the legal authority for government to assign
economic value to hot air. The pursuit of profits, with the U.N.
directing the cash flow, overwhelmed whatever altruistic motivations may
have been present at the beginning. The money prize is why conflicting
science is no longer allowed at U.N. negotiations.
The U.N., foundations, and many of the corporations that fund them, have
invested hundreds of millions of dollars in non-government
organizations to promote the Kyoto Protocol and keep the global warming
issue hot. The Enron disaster, which will ultimately be measured in the
billions, is but one entity in a global con game manufactured on the
pretext of protecting the environment.
