Remember Enron? Did you know Enron had stuffed the pockets of politicians full of money, hoping to get the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Treaty? From the Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2002 (emphasis added):
On Aug. 4, 1997, Lay and seven other energy executives met with Clinton, Gore, Rubin and other top officials at the White House to discuss ... global warming ... there was broad consensus in favor of an emissions-trading system.
An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.
Once President Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty, Enron began pushing for a regulatory scheme we now know as "cap and trade."
What is "cap and trade?"
Well, it works like this. The government pulls a number out of a hat, then makes it the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions allowed in the U.S. They then issue permits to each company affected, giving them permission to emit 'x' amount of carbon dioxide each year. Since some companies will need more than allotted and others will need less, the permits will be tradable on the open market.
Is it just me? Or can you see huge potential for shenanigans in this scheme too? Let's look at it ...
First, the "cap and trade" scheme creates artificial scarcity where none existed before - carbon dioxide emissions. Second, the permits create a new asset which if you just think about for a moment ... are backed by nothing but thin air! Then, because certain companies (automotive for example) will be forced to go into the market to buy additional permits (because they're controlled by quotas), they'll necessarily drive the price of the permits to the moon, making a small handful of politically-connected people loads of cash, for doing nothing more than trading air.
Because we all know the government can't accurately forecast what will happen 2 minutes from now, let alone a longer term, it's obvious they'll make mistakes in their allotments (not to mention favoring their favorite donors). This means companies will find it more difficult to forecast, compounding the negative effects on the economy. For example, Ford Motor Company could be forced to shut down a plant for a month or so, simply because they (or the government) made an error in their carbon (air) forecast.
The carbon permits add additional costs to the companies affected too, because well, they now have to buy permits that represent air! Added to the difficulty in forecasting and the scarcity of available permits ... it's easy to see how costly this scheme could become. The true cost to American taxpayers (customers of affected companies) however, is virtually impossible to calculate with this convoluted scheme. So another way of looking at it is, "cap and trade" is a "hidden tax."
Are any of us really so naive, that we can't see the obvious and blatant collusion and corruption built into this scheme to trade air? Seriously, they're trading assets of air, artificially created by the government and their corporate cronies. Assets which both large and small companies will be forced to purchase. "Cap and trade" is a Ponzi scheme built on air!
The Michigan Daily has a great piece on this "cap and trade" scheme (emphasis added):
The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that the Climate Security Act would reduce the gross domestic product by 0.9 percent to 3.8 percent in 2030, and 2.4 percent to 6.9 percent in 2050. The EPA also predicts steep increases in electricity and gas prices with the scheme, which would negatively affect almost every corner of our economy. Higher energy costs will be passed directly onto consumers, and that includes anyone who pays an electric bill.
One group that will benefit from a cap-and-trade system is politicians. As lobbyists push for more credits for the companies they represent, politicians will reap the benefits of their favors. Thinking that the politics of cap-and-trade would work any other way in Washington is nothing more than a dream. If transparency and accountability were major concerns of Congress, they would support a simpler carbon tax, one which would charge polluters a dollar amount per ton of carbon emitted, and one that would avoid a massive expansion of bureaucracy in the process. But don't hold your breath for such a solution to come to fruition - politicians enjoy the clout they will have in determining who gets carbon credits.
Everything produced in America will instantly become more expensive. Living in Michigan as I do, where we get 60% of our energy from burning coal, our personal energy costs will "necessarily sky-rocket," thus reducing our standard of living across the board. All so politicians can grab more power, while stuffing their pockets with even more of my cash.
As House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH) said:
... we've got real concerns about his plan on cap and trade. Let's just be honest and call it a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch, pure and simple. And if you look at this whole budget plan, they use this carbon tax as a way to fund all their big government ideas.
More from the Detroit News (emphasis added):
The Obama cap-and-trade program will place even more of the economy under the control of the federal government. The only upside is that the negative impact it will have on economic growth and job creation will take care of the carbon emissions problem, for sure.
Okay, so now e know "cap and trade" is just a scheme for the politically-connected to transfer the wealth of the middle class into their own pockets, by trading nothing but air. How does BP fit into all of this?
In 1997, then president of British Petroleum, Lord Browne, met with President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Enron chief Kenneth Lay at the White House to discuss policy actions based on the theory of man-made global warming. In other words, they invented "cap and trade."
Not long after the meeting, Browne began working to re-brand British Petroleum as an environmentally-progressive corporation named BP "Beyond Petroleum," and started (conveniently) investing in (subsidized) "alternative energy" companies too.
BP has since spent tens of millions each year lobbying Congress for "cap and trade." In fact, BP is so tight with Washington, their go to man is none other than Tony Podesta, the brother of John Podesta (president of the progressive Center for American Progress). It's a dirty, twisted web.
Fast-forward to today ... Enron went bust, BP's looking more like "Bankrupt Petroleum," and the federal government is about to go bust too.
The Triumph of Progressivism!
For more information on the BP - Enron Connection:
[...] doesn’t exist) building mass-transit systems nobody will use voluntarily. Then they cook up “Cap and Trade,” a scheme that will richly line the Ruling Class pockets richly, trading nothing more than [...]
[...] is fitting that real market forces have imposed their discipline on this Enron-like market, leaving climate alarmists in spin mode. Howard Learner, president of the Environmental Law and [...]
[...] more from the Classic Liberal article here, BP, Enron and Cap and Trade. Tags: American Sovereignty, Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Climate conference, Climategate, [...]