Maybe the Third World will help the hedge fund manager and currency manipulator do it.
The preeminent funder of the left in America wants the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to become a kind of globetrotting Bernard Madoff, offering low-interest loans to poor countries so they can invest in the doomed global warming industry.
According to Soros, the loans would allow developing countries to “jump-start forestry, land use, and agricultural projects – areas that offer the greatest scope for reducing or mitigating carbon emissions, and that could produce substantial returns from carbon markets.”
Soros, who personally wants to invest $1 billion in “clean” technology, wants the IMF to help stimulate demand for the technology he plans to underwrite.
Specifically, Soros proposes using the IMF’s special drawing rights (SDRs) to make loans to developing countries. The SDRs, which he describes as “arcane financial instruments that essentially constitute additional foreign exchange” can be converted into one of four currencies and lent out at a low interest rate. The loans would be backed by the IMF’s gold reserves.
Of course carbon markets exist only because governments say they do. Governments artificially create demand for carbon indulgences. When the demand for carbon offsets dies off as market participants finally realize anthropogenic global warming is a fraud, it’s going to get ugly.
As the Ponzi scheme finally unwinds, the governments of the developing world will be left holding the bag. When the bubble bursts, they’re going to get angry, maybe as angry as Albanians got when they were duped in pyramid schemes after the Iron Curtain collapsed.
The victims aren’t likely to be enthusiastic about markets either.
He’s got billions of dollars in potential personal worth on the line.
Even the New York Times has finally noticed how much Gore has at stake. “[F]ew have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”
We noticed Gore’s conflict of interest years ago:
Al Gore’s Carbon Empire: Cashing in on Climate Change, by Fred Lucas, Foundation Watch, August 2008
Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It, by Deborah Corey Barnes, Foundation Watch, August 2007
On his TV show Glenn Beck briefly highlighted the hassle that environmental journalist Phelim McAleer encountered when he dared to challenge Al Gore during a speech.
The speech in Madison, Wisconsin was sponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists. Amazingly, these alleged journalists closed ranks and shut McAleer down for daring to challenge the many false and inaccurate statements in Gore’s propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth.
McAleer asked Gore, who stands to make mountains of money if the carbon emission controls he supports are made into law, if he plans to address the mistakes in the movie. McAleer said:
A judge in the British high court after a lengthy hearing found there were nine significant errors. This has been shown to children. Do you accept those findings and have you done anything to correct those errors?
From Gore’s deer-in-the-headlights look and stammering response, you can see why the former U.S. vice president doesn’t like answering questions about his wacky climate change theories.
After organizers cut McAleer’s microphone they confronted him in the hallway. Said McAleer:
At the Society for [sic] Environmental Journalists the reaction of the journalists, the actions of Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, and the action of the journalists was to shut down the journalist and protect the politician.
McAleer says journalists are too often cheerleaders for environmentalists.
What I would like of environmental journalists like myself is, that you treat Big Environment the same way as you treat Big Politics and Big Government and Big Business. Treat Big Environment the way you treat Big Business. Where does the money come from? Who’s channeling it? Is that reported [unintelligible]? And where is the independent verification of those claims? But they don’t. If an environmentalist organization says something it’s accepted as gospel.
Al Gore shill Joseph Romm of John Podesta’s Center for American Progress tries to distance himself from NASA’s reigning climate kook, James Hansen, in a revealing Huffington Post op-ed.
Billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who has supported many worthy free-market causes in his life, explained on the “Glenn Beck Program” Tuesday his curious support for the Democrats’ totalitarian cap-and-trade legislation.
“We haven’t had the leadership in Washington in 40 years to have an energy plan,” Pickens complained to substitute host (retired) Judge Andrew Napolitano. Pickens has spent millions of dollars to date promoting the “Pickens Plan” that is aimed at reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
Pickens hailed the bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), as “the most encompassing ” energy legislation ever. The legislation, which is also backed by global warming alarmist Al Gore who compares the struggle against climate change to the war against the Nazis, would kill jobs and regulate every aspect of Americans’ behavior.
Pickens said that cap-and-trade “isn’t my issue” but that the measure has “some good things in it” such as its treatment of wind energy, solar energy, and provisions for electric grid modernization.
“Pickens wants to hard-wire the market to consume the things he’s investing in and have the government lavish him with subsidies in the course of doing so,” according to Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute.
Now the ACORN crime family is jumping on the global warming alarmism bandwagon, according to (the left-leaning) Worldwatch Institute.
The radical community group, which is now facing voter registration fraud charges in Nevada, has joined forces with Al Gore and other groups for the ultimate taxpayer shakedown: carbon emission controls.
From the Worldwatch article:
Brian Kettenring, ACORN’s deputy director of national operations, said his group – the largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate- income people in the United States – was inspired to join the Climate Equity Alliance and work with groups such as the Sierra Club after seeing the vulnerability of cities such as New Orleans to rising sea levels and more intense climatic events. The group, which lobbies for affordable housing and improved education in urban areas, is also encouraged by the hope of “green jobs,” environmentally sustainable employment opportunities.
“ACORN families understand that building a green economy that’s sustainable and builds jobs for working families is good for them, good for the environment, and good for communities,” Kettenring said.
ACORN’s contribution will include direct lobbying of Congress. In the long term, Kettenring expects more ACORN chapters to become involved in green jobs initiatives, such as efforts to collect federal funding for weatherizing urban buildings. [...]
Danish enviro-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg had an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month.
He’s right to say that much of corporate America is pushing for draconian carbon emission controls because visions of dollar signs are dancing in their heads. They are more than happy to eat U.S. tax dollars in order to supposedly save the planet.
I would go farther than that. I would say that they are recklessly indifferent to whether the new energy taxes they support –whether they be direct (carbon taxes) or hidden (cap and trade)– will harm America.
We’ve been following the destructive lobbying of U.S. big businesses on this issue for some time.
Timothy P. Carney profiled the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) for us in the June 2008 edition of Organization Trends. Fred Lucas detailed the efforts by Al Gore to feed the global warming hysteria in the August 2008 Foundation Watch and also looked at the efforts by Goldman Sachs to cash in on that hysteria in the October Foundation Watch. In the August 2007 Foundation Watch Deborah Corey Barnes spotlighted Al Gore’s environmental scaremongering business.
General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, a left-wing panderer who has presided over his company’s decline in recent years, says the economy-killing cap-and-trade system of trading emission permits is the best way to crack down on carbon emissions, Jeff Poor of NewsBusters writes.
And Immelt seems to be using his company’s media conglomerate NBC Universal, which owns media outlets NBC, MSNBC and CNBC, to promote GE’s financial interest in regulating carbon.
GE is also a major player in the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which Timothy P. Carney profiled for Capital Research Center last year in the June 2008 Organization Trends. USCAP is also pushing for cap-and-trade.
So is Goldman Sachs , which along with Al Gore, will rake in incomprehensibly huge sums of money from carbon trading.
As the so-called consensus on anthropogenic global warming continues to collapse, fantasist Al Gore is afraid to debate those who dare to question his theories, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Here’s a video clip from a conference at which he browbeat questioner Bjorn Lomborg:
Maybe Gore doesn’t want to discuss the millions and millions of dollars he stands to make if the job-killing carbon emissions controls he wants are imposed.
Two courageous Irish filmmakers, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, are promoting their documentary that examines Al Gore’s outrageous and increasingly desperate global warming propaganda.
The movie, Not Evil Just Wrong, is worth a look. Their website describes the film as: “A feature length documentary which shows how extreme environmentalism is damaging the lives of vulnerable people from the ban on DDT to the campaigns on Global Warming.”
Amidst freezing rain that forced closure of some local schools, Al Gore was on Capitol Hill today trying to bolster his global warming investment portfolio.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) blasted Gore, calling his sales call “desperate.”
“I’d say he has a real serious problem. But he’s already made his $100 million, so I don’t think he needs to worry too much about it. But the science and logic are on our side, and we are winning,” Inhofe said.
We examined Gore’s self-serving climate crusade in the August 2008 and August 2007 editions of Foundation Watch.
Penny wise, pound foolish? In a breathtaking leap of faith, the Church of England has decided to gamble £150 million on global warming alarmist Al Gore’s sketchy investment firm, Generation Investment Management (GIM).
What makes the investment so risky is that GIM stands to make a killing only if the U.S. government cracks down on carbon dioxide emissions.
We previously examined Al Gore’s adventures in climate change finance in the August 2008 edition of Foundation Watch and before that in the August 2007 edition of Foundation Watch.
Yet another bad idea arises from the environmentalist movement.
A British lawyer proposes creating an international court that would have the power to protect the “right to a healthy environment,” which of course is not a “right” at all. The Telegraph reports:
Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the “right to a healthy environment”.
The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.
Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.
The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.
Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.
“The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going,” he said. “Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments.”
As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country. [...]
Hockman should be censured for even daring to air such a ridiculous plan. His proposal comes as a new international poll shows people across the world don’t buy into Al Gore’s global warming fantasies.
There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.
Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
There already are reports emerging that some countries, such as coal-dependent Poland, are pushing for special treatment to avoid making major commitments to slash carbon emissions during a global economic downturn.
Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.
Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend “extra time” on the effort, an eight-point drop.
And only one in five respondents – or 20 per cent – said they’d spend extra money to reduce climate change. That’s down from 28 per cent a year ago.
The Canadian results, from a poll of 1,000 respondents conducted in September, were virtually identical to the overall figures. There are no comparative figures for Canada because Canadians weren’t included in the global study in 2007.
The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.
The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute. [...]
There is reason for optimism amidst signs like this that the tide is finally beginning to turn against climate change alarmists.
The Czech Republic’s impending takeover of the EU presidency should help too given Czech President Vaclav Klaus’s vehement criticism of the theory of manmade global warming. Klaus will have a bully pulpit to bludgeon Al Gore and his mindless followers for a year. It will be fun to watch.
Ultimately we’re going to win this fight but it will take a while yet.
After eight years of resisting cap-and-trade proposals as offered in the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, America is back as a leader on the issue of climate change and will press ahead with policy changes that address environmental and economic challenges that are now interlinked, according to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Kerry, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made those comments in speaking with reporters during a conference call Tuesday. The call was organized to address an upcoming climate change conference (Dec. 1-12) in Poznan, Poland.
With scientific evidence weighing in favor of the idea that global warming is man made, it is imperative for the global community to shift away from dependence on fossil fuels and to a green economy as a matter of survival, Kerry said.
“You can’t be half-pregnant on this issue,” he said. “You can’t accept the science and say ‘yes, global warming is man made and yes, climate change is happening faster than the scientists in fact thought it was going to,’ and then not accept the same scientific conclusions with respect to what that impact is and what we’re already witnessing.” [...]
Kerry long ago bought into Al Gore’s manmade global warming fantasies.
Businesses aren’t being allowed to fail in America today, and the bigger they are, the more help they get from the government. So it’s not much of a surprise that yet another bailout package is in the works, this time for Citigroup.
Citigroup is a Big Government-lovers’ bank. In tax year 2003, its foundation gave $1,109,000 to groups on the left and just $55,000 to groups on the right, according to our 2006 study of Fortune 100 foundation giving. Its giving broke down this way:
To the Left:
ACORN $9,000
Aspen Institute $37,500
Citizen Policy and Education Fund of New jersey $15,000
Conservation International $250,000
Council on Foreign Relations $50,000
Council on Foundations $10,000
National Center on Poverty Law $15,000
Rainbow Push Coalition $250,000
Rainforest Alliance $50,000
League of Women Voters $20,000
Nature Conservancy $50,000
World Resources Institute $337,500
World Wildlife Fund $15,000
To the right:
Foundation for Teaching Economics $50,000
Washington Legal Foundation $5,000
Visions of fat underwriting fees and commissions in its head, Citigroup is also keeping its fingers crossed that economy-killing carbon emissions controls are enacted. The company wholeheartedly buys into Al Gore’s global warming myth.
Citigroup put out this self-serving report, “Carbon Trading: The Sky’s the Limit,” last year. Of course, big investment firms favor carbon emissions trading because they can’t make a buck if a direct carbon tax is imposed on emitters.
Not content with merely purchasing the secretary of state post in Minnesota, now George Soros holds a fundraiser to help Democrat Al Franken steal the contested U.S. Senate election in that state.
Left-wing billionaire financier George Soros is using his financial muscle at a Manhattan fund-raiser tonight to help Al Franken win a recount in Minnesota’s Senate election.
Soros – the hedge-fund honcho and sugar daddy of the Democratic Party – will host a soirée for Franken at his Carnegie Hill digs to help cover the candidate’s costs to monitor the statewide recount.
The special guest: Al Gore, who knows a thing or two about recounts.
At last count, Franken trails GOP incumbent Norm Coleman by just 216 votes out of 2.9 million cast. Minnesota yesterday initiated a hand recount that is not expected to be completed until mid-December. [...]
At GreenWatch we now have archived an interactive list of the “worst environmental prophecies of catastrophic doom.” It is a list of eleven of the most interesting and pointed cases of environmental activists raising the red alert, and the unintended fall out from it.
The one below is my favorite, recycling did help, and may be emotionally virtuous and self-gratifying, but it may also be a giant waste of time and energy resources. (Video link: caution adult language, ear-muffs for the under-age readers.)
Al Gore was once a garbage alarmist.In the 1980s he worried that America would run out of space to handle its garbage. Gore claimed the U.S. was “running out of ways to dispose of our waste in a manner that keeps it out of either sight or mind.”The actual problem was skewed data: In the 1980s the waste disposal industry did close many small landfills, but it began to open large high capacity landfills as well as explore new methods of incineration and recycling. Environmental alarmists ignored this development.Recent data indicates that with fewer but larger landfills, the United States can accommodate at least 25% more trash with no danger of running out of future waste storage space.
October 1, 2008 saw the expiration of the moratorium on offshore drilling. It was lovingly dubbed “Energy Independence Day.” As noted in an early post, accessing domestic offshore oil takes a long time (at least 6 years). Permits, inquiries, studies, comment periods, and lots of red tape prevent oil producers from accessing oil. It turns out that getting 6 years worth of paperwork done is the easy part. Suffering the litigation put forth by wealthy environmentalist groups is the hard part. On that note, I’d like to introduce the beluga whale.
Today, the federal government declared the beluga whale endangered. This means that any offshore drilling in the Cook Inlet area of Alaska is nearly impossible now. Yet again, a small group of radicals prevents America from accessing its own natural resources. The Center for Biological Diversity, a member of CRC’s Gang Green, is the ultra-liberal environmental group that spearheaded the efforts to have the beluga whale listed on the endangered species list. This is very likely the beginning of a long string of roadblocks to energy independence that result from litigation from radical environmentalist groups.
I wonder if Vegas runs odds on which animal goes next?
If you haven’t already done so, meet David Suzuki. He is Canada’s version of a more personable Al Gore. Suzuki is the face of Canadian environmentalism and he is having a bad week in the wake of the Canadian elections. Why? The centerpiece of the Liberal party’s platform during the recent Canadian elections was a very expensive Green Shift carbon tax plan and the election results point towards a resistance among Canadians to embrace a massive new carbon tax.
In other words, common sense has prevailed in Canada!
At least a little bit, for now.
Conservative opposition to the Green Shift carbon tax plan outlined the terms of the political discourse early on in the election process and were able to pitch the tax as a massive tax rather than an environmental issue. The election results do not necessarily mean that the tax won’t pass in the near future or that common sense will continue to prevail, but it offers a bit of hope and an important lesson for those of us who openly oppose oppressive obligations on our wallets in the form of environmental policies. Shift the discussion to highlight the tax burden and huge price tag rather than letting the feel-good environmentalist arguments prevail. The problem with feel-good environmentalist arguments is that they care little for the burden it places on people. Fiscal conservatives need to reconquer the language of the debate and rephrase it in real, economic terms. We need to make people understand that the environmentalists are pushing for policies that are disastrously expensive and will cripple the U.S. economy and stifle future growth.
We simply can’t afford to lose this battle in the coming months and years.
The World Wildlife Fund is offering a private jet expedition in an attempt to reach a new level of hypocrisy. The journey is made up of a 24-day whirlwind world tour that will take guests to almost every corner of the globe. Take a look at a brief description of the trip:
Join us on a remarkable 25-day journey by private jet. Touch down in some of the most astonishing places on the planet to see the top wildlife, including gorillas, orangutans, rhinos, lemurs and toucans. Explore natural and cultural treasures in remote areas of South America, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia and Africa.
To reach these remote corners, travel on a specially outfitted private jet that carries 88 passengers. World-class experts – including WWF’s director of species conservation – will provide a series of lectures en route, and a professional staff will be devoted to making your global adventure seamless and memorable.
Sound great? You can book your spot for a pretty hefty price tag: $64,950! But, of course, this is trip is meant to raise money for the WWF by entertaining some of its wealthier donors.
But, how does this square with the World Wildlife Fund’s mission? Here is where it gets pretty murkey. Steve Milloy, of Fox News, ran some of the numbers using a carbon footprint calculator and this is what he came up with (he claims he uses WWF’s own calculator, which I cannot find, but the calculators on the EPA website confirm these numbers):
Using the carbon footprint calculator on the WWF’s own web site, the 36,800-mile trip in a Boeing 757 jet will burn about 100,000 gallons of jet fuel to produce roughly 1,231 tons of CO2 in 25 days — that’s the equivalent of putting about 1,560 SUVs on the road during those three-plus weeks and that doesn’t even include emissions related to local air, ground and water transport and other amenities.
The WWF laments on its web site that the average American produces 19.6 tons of CO2 annually, which is nearly five times the world average of 3.9 tons per person. But during the WWF’s posh excursion, travelers will produce 14 tons of CO2 per person. That’s 71 percent of the average American carbon footprint and 360 percent of the average global footprint in a mere three-and-one-half weeks. But who’s counting — especially when you’re in “19 rows of spacious leather seats with full ergonomic support” enjoying “gourmet meals, chilled champagne [and] your own chef.”
So, WWF’s suggestion is for their guests to emit, in one month, almost the same amount of CO2 as the average American produces in a year. Do you know who else likes to emit this much CO2 per month? Al Gore. The powerful players in the environmental movement seem to believe that cutting emissions is necessary and that everyone who can’t write a $65,000 check to the WWF needs to do everything they can to save the world.
The brazen “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude that “Big Enviros” display is getting ridiculous. I hope that people will start to realize that environmentalists are only trying to taking advantage of people when they trumpet their alarmism through the media loudspeaker. This hypocrisy will continue until people wise up to their slimy green tactics.
