I know you are going to be shocked when I tell you that the banksters
have their teeth in the climate change agenda like a pit bull on
You have heard the mantra “the planet is a space-borne oven that is
melting the polar ice caps, destroying the polar bears and turning Des
Moines into beachfront property.”
The solution? Pass laws that “disincentivize” the production of
carbon dioxide by taxing its use. Oh, and turn the tax into derivatives
so Goldman Sachs and friends can pig out. (See the chapter “The Goldman
Connection” in my e-book Crisis by Design at www.behindthewizardscurtain.com.)
The marketing folks have branded this scheme “carbon credits.”
The skyline of Kyoto, Japan, is dotted with many of the country’s
oldest Buddhist temples. One of these ancient shrines is built on a
lake. The water in the lake is so pristine that the best way to tell the
real temple from the reflection is to throw a rock in the water and see
which of the images ripples.
This, an introductory allegory, is to make the point that things are not always as they seem, even in the land of many Buddhas.
In 1997, an international agreement was signed in Kyoto seeking to
limit greenhouse gas emissions. It was named after the host city and
carries a handle better suited for a Robert Ludlum novel: The Kyoto
The Kyoto Protocol and a subsequent agreement called the Marrakech
Accords set “caps” or quotas on the maximum amount of greenhouse gas a
country could emit. In turn, each country was to then assign carbon
emission “caps” or quotas to its own businesses and other organizations,
which are referred to as operators.
Thus, every business in every country that signed the Kyoto Protocol
is supposed to have an allowance of “carbon credits.” Businesses that
exceed their allowance must buy some carbon credits. These can be
purchased from “green” companies that have not used their allocation of
carbon, or they can be bought on a “carbon exchange.”
Let’s take, for example, a furniture factory. The factory is emitting
125 tons of carbon dioxide per year, but its allowance is 100 tons. The
factory must now cut its production to bring it into alignment with its
100-ton quota, or buy 25 credits from, say, a biofuel company that is
producing “carbon neutral” fuel—an entirely different view of the
As the population grows, as new companies are created and existing
ones expand their productivity, the use of energy (and thus carbon-based
fuels and emissions) will increase. The quotas for a country, however,
will actually be lowered.
Of course, as carbon quotas (or caps) are lowered, the value of carbon credits increases.
You get the picture: the rules of supply and demand will prevail and the cost of carbon credits has a built-in price increase.
Moreover, while the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, and
Copenhagen turned out to be little more than a cacophonous blizzard of
press releases, President Obama has committed to a goal of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions to 17 percent below the 2005 levels this year
and reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
This is exactly what the “cap-and-trade” legislation that passed the
U.S. House of Representatives in June of last year mandates. That’s
right, the same circus act that brought you last year’s $1.5 trillion
budget deficit has passed a bill to force you to use less energy—because
CO2 is creating global warming.
Except, there is no global warming, temperatures have continued to
cool over the last decade, and even if they hadn’t, man-made carbon
dioxide has nothing to do with any kind of harmful climate change—nada,
Can you imagine what this kind of legislation would do to American industry and commerce?
To get the full magnitude of where this insanity is going, consider
the British. The UK Secretary of State for the Environment has promised
legislation there that will set legally binding lower carbon emissions
of 60 percent by 2050. He has also conducted a feasibility study to
issue carbon “credit cards” to every citizen under a nationwide carbon
Under this plan everybody would get an annual allowance of carbon
they could spend on products such as food, energy and travel.
Individuals would have to swipe their carbon card every time they bought
gas, paid a utility bill or booked an airline flight.
Go ahead, read that again. The words won’t change.
The British Parliament, which appears to be a collective mental
disorder, has gone so far as to give local bureaucrats the power to
enter a person’s home without a warrant to, among other things, check
for refrigerators that do not carry eco-friendly energy ratings.
We have here a system literally going mad before our eyes.
Carbon emission limits, and the buying and selling of “credits” to
deal with them (called Cap and Trade), are a solution created to deal
with a catastrophic—though nonexistent—problem created by what is
arguably the most well-orchestrated PR campaign in history.
The solution not only establishes a system of planetary economic
control by setting carbon emission limits down to every business (and in
the UK down to every citizen) but will make its creators and their
allies rich beyond all imaginings.
On a tactical level, Cap and Trade does three things: it suppresses
productivity and thus increases unemployment; it drives a biofuel agenda
(for carbon credits) that is destroying the earth’s ecosystem, and, if
continued, will destroy the very air we breathe; and it creates a
massive new international Ponzi scheme that has the international banks
orgasmic with delight.
Five “climate exchanges” have already been set up that deal in the
buying and selling of carbon credits. The two larger exchanges are the
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which is the only U.S. firm that claims
to trade carbon credits, and Europe’s European Climate Exchange (ECX),
which is half owned by CCX.
There is the stock market, where stocks and bonds are traded, and a
commodities market where things like gold and silver and corn, wheat and
soybeans are traded. Now comet the carbon exchanges where carbon
credits in the form of derivatives will be bought and sold.
And derivatives sure did a nice job for us last year, didn’t they?
In short, derivatives are essentially contracts that package up some
kind of product into a financial instrument that can be traded—bought
and sold. A contract for 100 ounces of gold is a derivative, because the
contract isn’t the gold itself.
Banks and other entities will be buying carbon credits, packaging
them up, and selling them by the trillions. This is already well in
motion in Europe, where carbon offsets have been being traded since
The carbon market is projected to be in the trillions, and will be
turned lose in the U.S. the moment the Senate passes a cap-and-trade
bill. That bill will have to be reconciled with the House bill and sent
to President Obama, who has made this legislation a key policy
initiative second only to health care.
Everyone is set up and ready to go. The big banks have been investing
in carbon friendly enterprises—Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of
America and Citigroup are some of the players. Not to be outdone, the
World Bank has joined the CCX and now operates a Carbon Fund for Europe
that helps countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements.
Isn’t that special?
Major corporations, including the large oil companies, are strong
supporters of cap-and-trade legislation and are members of these carbon
exchanges as well. Why would an oil company be interested in this game?
As generators of lots of CO2, oil companies will have to
buy a lot of carbon credits. If the price of oil skyrockets, they make
handsome profits from the oil business. However, as the price of oil
rises, so, too, will the price of carbon credits. You see, as oil gets
expensive, people turn to less costly coal-fired energy. Coal generates
roughly twice the CO2 of oil—which means the demand for carbon credits will increase to offset the coal emissions.
So the oil company scores both ways. Profit on their oil and profit from the increase in value of their carbon credit portfolio.
You see, this is a market that is created only if governments (or
international bodies with the authority to do so) mandate emissions
standards. By doing so, they instantly create a carbon market because
many businesses will have to buy carbon offsets.
If governments impose a limit on carbon emissions, the market will come. If not, it won’t.
The carbon markets in Europe crashed after the Copenhagen conference
failed to establish legally binding emission caps for the major
You see how this works?
And remember, the emission standards do not increase with population
growth or increases in the number of plants or factories or their
output. They are capped and are then lowered. Therefore carbon credits
will continue to rise in price, as the supply will steadily decrease,
driving higher demand. Escalating profits are built in if governments
mandate the standards.
And standing on deck to become the first carbon billionaire is none other than . . .
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
It is not hard to imagine Al Gore in a minister’s collar.
After all, he went to Vanderbilt Divinity School when he was a young man—an act of “purification,” his wife would later say.
And he has called greenhouse gases “a moral issue . . . deeply
unethical,” which must be why he warns of environmental Armageddon with
such a religious zeal:
“. . . unless we act boldly and quickly to deal with the
underlying causes of global warming, our world will undergo a string of
terrible catastrophes, including more and stronger storms like Hurricane
Katrina. . . .
“Today, we are hearing and seeing dire warnings of the worst
potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization: a global
climate crisis that is deepening and rapidly becoming more dangerous
than anything we have ever faced.”
What do we do, Brother Al? How do we solve “the worst potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization”?
“Cap and trade, my son, cap and trade.”
There’s just one little point that should be known about Brother Al’s
sermon: if governments mandate the cap-and-trade legislation he is
advocating, Al the Righteous, Al the Moral, Al the Ethical, stands to
You see, while he is pushing governments around the world to cap
carbon emissions, which will force companies to buy carbon offset
credits, he is also the chairman and founder of a private equity firm
called Generation Investment Management (GIM), which invests in . . .
you guessed it . . . carbon dioxide offsets.
Matt Taibbi’s article in Rolling Stone lays out the structure beautifully.
“The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators
is that the `cap’ on carbon will be continually lowered by the
government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more
scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new
commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed
to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be
upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison’s sake, the
annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total
A World Bank Private Sector blog regularly gushes about Brother Al,
whose partners in GIM are those priests of Wall Street propriety, the
suspender-wearing bankers from Goldman Sachs. Co-founder of the company
is David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management; other
former Goldmanite big shots include Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris.
Assisting with the creation of Al’s ethical investment house was none
other than the godfather of the Wall Street derivatives that fueled the
global financial crisis and the star of the trillion-dollar bank bailout
of 2008, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hammering Hank Paulson.
Goldman has long sought cap-and-trade legislation, having spent $3.5
million lobbying climate issues in 2008. And the bank owns a 10 percent
interest in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), mentioned above. The CCX
is the only U.S. firm that claims to trade carbon credits, and, as
noted above, also has a 50 percent interest in its sister carbon
exchange in Europe, the European Climate Exchange (ECX).
Members of the Chicago Climate Exchange, besides GIM, include Ford
Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, International Paper,
Motorola and other tier-one carbon emitters. This gives them a “home”
from which to buy their offset credits, but also the ability to invest
in credits for the purpose of speculation.
If cap-and-trade legislation passes, the CCX’s business and income will soar. Its members will profit gluttonously.
And the biggest shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange? That’s right, Brother Al’s Generation Investment Management.
Amen, Brother Al. Amen.
People know that it is greed that runs through the veins of Goldman
Sachs. They are in a class by themselves, plundering the financial
markets like pirates of old. But what about Al the Ethical?
Do you think there’s a conflict of interest in his incessant warnings
of the greatest catastrophe in human history if Congress does not
legalize carbon restrictions, when his investment company is the largest
shareholder in the only U.S. carbon exchange and that same company
invests only in carbon offset opportunities?
You think perhaps that Al has taken on the color of his predatory partners?
Another one of Gore’s partners in GIM (this one, silent) is Maurice
Strong, a man many credit with being the godfather of the environmental
movement. Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate
Exchange and is known to have—what shall we call them?—extreme
Strong once told a reporter the plot to a novel in which the rich
countries of the world refused to sign an agreement that reduced their
impact on the environment. In order to save the planet, a small group of
world leaders decide that the only hope for mankind is for the
industrialized civilizations to collapse.
Strong’s allegedly fictional plot is echoed in real life by
extremists of the environmental movement. Paul Ehrlich, Professor of
Population Studies at Stanford, said, “A massive campaign must be
launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing
our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the
world resource situation.”
And Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund, said, “The only
hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.
We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of
industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World
countries right where they are.”
Fortunately, these are not the views of most environmentalists. Most
environmentalists are caring people who see our waterways turning toxic
with chemical poisons, our rain forests being annihilated, species going
extinct by the thousands, and are concerned enough to want to do
something about it.
The problem is that they have been fed deceitful and highly
misleading information and are seeking to implement solutions to a
problem that does not exist, solutions that are making things infinitely
There ARE critical environmental problems on this planet which, if
not reversed, can cause devastating consequences. But global warming is
not one of them and the solutions being pushed by vested interests are
not only bogus, they are causing the very problems real
environmentalists are concerned about.
This, then, is a brief summary of the key elements of the con job:
The Club of Rome’s theory of global warming and their deceptive call for “sustainable development” is based on junk science.
The global anxiety over depletion of the planet’s fossil fuels is
based on a lie. Oil scarcity is a myth. Oil is not a fossil fuel and it
is a renewable resource.
Global warming is an invention. The planet has been cooling for more
than a decade, has experienced much warmer temperatures long before
industrialization and man-made carbon existed—and carbon dioxide is what
plants use to create oxygen.
Biofuels are not a solution to the planet’s environmental problems, but rather are highly destructive of life on Earth.
Carbon credits are a vicious scam. Financial products made possible
only by political mandates, they are based on a nonexistent problem and
will destroy the economies of the world while making international
bankers and the global elite rich beyond imagining.
While real environmentalists do not hold the draconian views of
Michael Oppenheimer or Paul Ehrlich, if cap-and-trade laws are allowed
to pass, their visions of an industrial apocalypse are all too possible.
1. All effort should be made to nullify carbon credits on an
immediate basis. This holds true whether on a local, national or
international basis. For example, there is a cap-and-trade bill in the
U.S. Senate that is high on the administration’s agenda.
Misinformed environmentalists or “environmentalists” that benefit
from the carbon credit agenda are pushing this legislation with a
passion born of ignorance or a blatant thirst for power and wealth.
“This system, which may sound market-friendly, is something only a
bureaucrat could dream up. The twist is that the carbon market exists
only because the government’s imposition of a cap creates an artificial
scarcity in the right to produce energy.” —Deborah Corey Barnes, the PoliReport, Washington, D.C.
The damaging effect of such a law on the U.S. economy or the economy
of any nation that adopts similar legislation is blatantly obvious and
it should be derailed, or, if already passed, repealed. California, for
example, has already passed legislation that mandates a 25 percent cut
in emissions by 2020. No one has been corny enough to brand the
legislation the state’s “economic terminator,” so I’ll do it here.
2. Countries should opt out of the Kyoto Protocol and nullify it, along with any actual agreements that were made in Copenhagen.
This similarly applies to all underdeveloped countries, though from a
different perspective. The simplicity is that carbon credits
destroy—economies, environments, and life. But third-world countries
hold considerable leverage: if they opt out of the Kyoto Protocol and
forbid carbon credits, it does not matter what laws are passed in the
U.S. or EU, the carbon credits system will fall flat. It requires
developing and underdeveloped countries’ cooperation, as they have the
carbon offset resources (rain forests, etc).
It is important for them to understand that if they join the system
and go for the quick buck now, they will make some short-term money
selling credits; but as they gradually industrialize, they will have to
buy them back—and what will the cost be then? The African Union has the
capability to enforce this.
3. Biofuel production should be legislated against, as it is
meaningless as a viable energy resource and because it creates more
environmental destruction than all prior conventional causes.
4. Effective action is needed to actually protect the environment:
Reduce the use of harmful fertilizers and gradually replace them with
nonharmful products. (Eliminating the production of biofuel would cause
the most dramatic and immediate improvement.) This would rapidly improve
the condition of our rivers and oceans.
5. Deescalate deforestation by prohibiting biofuel production, which
would also bring about the most immediate environmental improvement and
It doesn’t take a great deal of insight to see the amount of control
any governmental body could exert over a planet, a national economy, a
business or a household by enforcing a system of carbon emission
standards. This is, as one observer noted above, nothing less than
complete control of the production of energy.
When Gorbachev, speaking for the Club of Rome, said, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘internal disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order,” carbon credits are exactly the kind of NWO he meant.
Because, in the final analysis, global warming is nothing more than a PR campaign for global government.
We must act quickly and decisively. The Club of Rome has a massive
head start and control of much of the media. But neglect of our
responsibilities here is not an option. Not if we value the power of
choice, the freedom to produce, and economic self-determinism.
Let’s put this joker back in the box and keep it there. Civilization doesn’t need him.
© 2010 by John Truman Wolfe. All rights reserved.