Carbon Credits have been sold as Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) insurance policies. The problem is that this description is so dishonest it makes Bernie Madoff’s hustles look positively upright. Seriously, think of an auto insurance policy whose premiums are are pricier than paying the for the vehicle outright, AND, the price of the other guy’s car as well and the medical liability. Would you buy such an auto policy? To top it off, the policy does not pay anything back if the disaster happens. This is the true nature of carbon credits – especially when they are foisted upon a public by their elected officials, as was done down under in Australia.
The Global Warming Mafia is insisting that human activity will cause global temps to rise 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the next century. Not arguing the veracity of this forecast, let’s focus instead on the Carbon-Credits/Cap-N-Trade schemes that are environmentalist’s solution to this possible problem. Australia’s elites decided to cut C02 emissions, and did so by 1.5% to %5, depending on the source. The cost was billions, the tax on carbon was over $22 per tonne.
The end result was an increased dependency on coal, with the added costs of energy being passed on to the consumer, harming the middle class and poor for as such the tax is highly regressive. It cost their economy, Australia was in the middle of a huge mining boom, exporting raw materials as fast as they could be found. Their economy nearly went into a recession. In the end, all this near term pain and suffering will reduce the temperature, according to the formulas used by the AGW forecasters, by a whopping 1/20,000th of a degree Celsius. At least Mother Gaea is pleased.
If such measures were instituted throughout the industrialized word, we would see a global loss of GDP or near 80% or 3.2 quadrillion dollars or $3,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00, to stop a one degree rise in global temperatures. The cost of dealing with the predicted rise in global temperatures, is an expenditure of 1.5% of Global GDP. The environmentalist’s cure is 50 times worse than ignoring the disease.
Perhaps a different cure? Perhaps we re-examine the science behind the forecast of a 3 degree global temperature increase? Science without skepticism is not science. The global warming trend stopped 17 years ago. The models used by the AGW community are all out of sync with reality. The Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps have expanded since their lows in the 1990’s. This approach to temperature reduction has been branded a “waste” by a UBS report. In short, the science is far from settled. We all were supposed to be dead 5 years ago according to the worst of the predictions. Perhaps we should investigate who is benefiting from the AGW narrative? The great scam is not the idea of AGW but, “Who wants to profit by it?“