‘CAPITALISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE’ – Claim: ‘Capitalism is accelerating the global climate change consequences’
The sole ideology of the capitalism, with focusing on the profits instead on the sustainable development is responsible for the biggest part of the continuation of the devastating rise of the CO2 levels, which will have far reaching impacts on the whole world. The privatization of the public sector, deregulation of the private sector with lowering the taxes on profits for private companies and organizations are done at the expense of public spending and have the logic which is incompatible with the sustainability and needed actions to tackle global climate issues. What is worse, the World Trade Organization – WTO makes it possible to act against almost all international and national climate actions which were taken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Private companies are making money and are not paying for the environmental damage done in the process and are serving only the interest of the few .
The book gives good examples of the impacts of the capitalism and free trade on the environment and climate. It is focused on presenting the ideology of capitalism, which is based on spending, materialism, debt and causes with the trade pollution to which no one takes responsibility for. The trade and environment are regarded as two separated things, but they have mutual effect and should be regarded as such. The importance of the trade over the environment is seen from various different global trade agreements. Further on, the emissions caused because of the products produced in developing countries and used in West has been six times greater from emission savings of all industrialized countries. The overall emissions are increasing because the companies are moving their production in parts of the world with less strict environmental rules. It is concerning that despite greater public awareness about the climate change consequences the emissions are still increasing with continuation of the use of unsustainable resources. The developed world is blaming developing countries such as China, India, Brazil and others and gives a blind eye on the fact that their private companies under free trade are causing the most environmental damage.…
Gas stations to post signs: ‘Californians are paying collectively $2 billion per year in higher gas prices’ because of global warming regs
Sonora, CA — We reported previously that Republican lawmakers at the state capitol were pushing a bill that would have required service stations to post how much money the state’s Cap and Trade program increases gas prices.
The information would be in addition to the excise sales tax figures that stations are already required to post. The bill passed an early committee test, but supporters say it was later quietly killed without a vote of the legislature. Yesterday, the California Independent Oil Marketers Association announced that it will voluntarily start disclosing the information at the pumps. The group represents a quarter of the 10,000 service stations in California.
Association Spokesperson Jay McKeeman says, “Californians are paying collectively $2 billion per year in higher gas prices because of the Cap and Trade program, according to well-founded and publically-available estimates. We want to be transparent with our customers about the components of the price they are paying. That’s why we are fulfilling this responsibility for our members and the general public.”
State officials have estimated that Cap and Trade increases the gas tax by about 10-cents.
…Lies, Damned Lies, And The EPA’s ‘Clean Power Plan’
…President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” is on pause, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in March after more than two dozen states filed suit to stop it. A new report shows why the plan should be scrapped entirely, and the EPA sued for fraud.
By its own admission, the EPA says Clean Power Plan is one of the most sweeping regulations ever enacted. It would require electric companies to cut CO2 emissions 32% within 25 years — basically by shuttering coal plants and force feeding “renewable energy.”
In pushing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA claimed it would cost industry $9 billion a year, but produce up to $54 billion in annual health benefits, including “avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.”
Who could complain about that?
Turns out, the benefits of the Clean Power Plan will be closer to $0, while the costs would be far higher than the EPA claims.
That’s the conclusion in an in-depth report by the Manhattan Institute’s Jonathan Lesser.
Put simply, Lesser says the EPA’s benefit calculations are based on faulty assumptions and statistical legerdemain. He notes, for example, that since the Clean Power Plan will have an infinitesimal impact on global CO2 levels, it can’t have a $20 billion impact on health.
The EPA also claims $34 billion in side benefits because the rules will reduce other pollutants. But Lesser notes that the EPA has been double counting this co-benefits, using them to justify other costly rules, and that there’s likely to be zero improvement in health, given how clean the air is already.
EPA regulations to cut mercury emissions, for example, relied almost entirely on these supposed co-benefits to justify the $9.6 billion price tag. The direct health benefits from the reduction in mercury was negligible.
Analysis: ‘The Social Cost of Carbon is a preposterous & transparent fraud by the government’
…Cool Futures: World first hedge fund aims to pop the climate-bubble
Cool Futures: World first hedge fund aims to pop the climate-bubble
Time to pop some bubbles There is a $1.5 Trillion industry selling us better weather. If this climate money bubble were to collapse, someone is going to make a motza-lot of money. (And it might as well be the skeptics who saw it coming, eh?) Would you like to help develop a hedge fund that can play that game, and take those bets, both to invest and divest, to hedge, donate, and fund research? Another task is to also grow a philanthropic hedge fund management company.* One day soon, you may like the idea of short-selling overvalued renewables stocks, and doing other things that profit from cooler weather or collapsing subsidies — but which fund could you invest in to manage that? It’s a niche crying out to be filled. David and I liked this idea so much when we were approached by Chris Dawson two years ago, we got involved in developing Cool Futures (and obviously stand to benefit if this comes together, see the Disclosure at the end). Cool Futures could change the game in so many ways. The vision here is much more than just profit making. It’s about being a […]Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
— gReader Pro…
STUDY: Networks ignore job losses, bankruptcies in coal in 95% of stories
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/julia-seymour/2016/06/14/95-percent-time-networks-ignore-job-losses-bankruptcies-coal…
Experts Debunk Obama’s ‘Social Cost Of Carbon’ Estimate — It Might Be Negative!
Experts Debunk Obama’s ‘Social Cost Of Carbon’ Estimate — It Might Be Negative!
‘The ‘social cost of carbon’ is a very malleable concept’
— gReader Pro…
CNBC: UN Climate accord ‘irrelevant,’ & CO2 cuts could impoverish the world
CNBC.com
The world’s historic effort to reduce carbon emissions is likely to be a costly if not quixotic endeavor, according to one expert, whose recently published research warns that decarbonizing the globe could have devastating consequences on the world’s way of life.
In a report published this week, the International Energy Agency issued a call for “concrete action” to match the ambitions of last year’s landmark climate change agreement, which was recently ratified by nearly 200 countries. The energy watchdog said the transition to a low-carbon future would require “massive changes in the energy system” to prevent the globe’s temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.
Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change. In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.
Read MoreJack Welsh blasts ‘wacky’ climate change agenda, saying it hurts the US economy
Those vast sums are why M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, recently wrote that the push to restrict carbon“is set to fail comprehensively in meeting its avowed target, and a new debate is needed.” For that reason, Kelly is skeptical that initiatives like the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris will achieve its lofty goals.
In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the “immense benefits” of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world’s quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is “only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.”
COP21 “will be an irrelevance within a few years,” Kelly said to CNBC via email, “as the the bills pile up, and … the promises are reneged upon.”
Read MoreGlobal warming ‘religion’ costs too high: Ted Cruz
Removal of all excessive carbon from the atmosphere “is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle-class people downgrading