Glenn Beck: Why Goldman Is Willing to Take the Heat

Faith, hope and charity: We used to seek God's blessings on the country, we used to pursue maximum freedom to solve problems and we'd rely on one another in times of need.

Now we're being pushed towards what progressives have always found hope in: Dependency on regulations and administrations. Average Americans find that approach to be red tape. Our Founding Fathers found it to be slavery.

So it kind shocks me when there's no outcry to news stories like this one reported in the Financial Times over the weekend: The "U.S. is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to push for a tough new international capital regime."

We're talking about the foundation of international financial regulations and global governing. It's a trial balloon being floated out there and I guess it was a success because the response was complete and total silence.

Is it just me who thinks this is a bad idea? Am I alone? I guess so, because even Republicans are OK with this one. How could that happen? Easy: It's those evil, greedy Sith lord Wall Street executives! Like the ones at Goldman Sachs, who are appearing before the almighty Senate Tuesday to get grilled by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (sounds scary) about their so-called attempts to manipulate and profit off the crash of the housing market.

They'll get chewed out and made an example of by people like Chris Dodd, who joined in the chorus of Goldman haters on "Meet the Press" on Sunday:

SEN. CHRIS DODD, D-CONN.: Here we are, 17 months after someone broke into our house in effect and robbed us... and we still haven't changed the locks on the doors.

LARRY SUMMERS, WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: These off-balance sheet, nontransparent vehicles with what people call implicit guarantees, invite these kinds of problems.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY, R-ALA.: We have to end once and for all the casino atmosphere on Wall Street, where they're gambling, basically, on synthetic ideas and so forth — with somebody else's money.

You're right, Chris: You have to change those locks. But the other thing to make sure of is that the people you are calling to change the locks aren't the same ones who were involved with the robbery in the first place.

Yes, Dodd and his buddies will chew out Goldman, but if they are the root of all evil, why do these people all still work in the administration?

• William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; was a partner and managing director at Goldman

• Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; spent 18 years at Goldman

• Philip Murphy; nominated for ambassador to Germany; former Goldman executive

• Diana Farrell; deputy director of the National Economic Council; formerly with Goldman

There's just a few. And if Goldman really are the bad guys, we have bigger problems than just regulation, because we have to talk about global warming as well.

I got a tip from a watchdog — and by the way, if you are new to the program and don't know what a watchdog is, that's you. We've got millions of watchdogs e-mailing in tips and stories big and small and we welcome every single one of them. We get to as many as we can and even report on some of them, like this one about the Chicago Climate Exchange.

In case you didn't know the Chicago Climate Exchange existed — it does and it started trading in 2003. It's billed as: "North America's only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide." Members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to "meet annual Green House Gas emission reduction targets."

What's cap-and-trade? A scheme designed to transfer wealth from the companies that have to the companies that have not through the regulation of invisible gases. Remember, it was ENRON who lobbied heavily for this type of system, because they knew how to swindle a profit out of it.

Environmentalists like Obama want this system because it will make prices skyrocket and people will be forced to use less energy. But I don't want to put words in his mouth, I'll let him say it:

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

Got it? So the main beneficiaries will be big corporations and proponents of the redistribution of wealth. You are the loser here because you pay more for energy. But you can feel good because you saved the planet.

Not to mention, other places — like Europe — who have tried to implement green initiatives (like Spain) and then base markets on it are suffering the consequences. Because, as Time unwittingly described the creation of Chicago Climate Exchange, it "creates something out of nothing." There is no value behind the market; it's like Pets.com except now its solar panels.

In 2000 and 2001, Chicago Climate Exchange received start-up grants from the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is like the George Soros' TIDES Foundation. In fact, it's actually bigger than TIDES and even funds TIDES. Think of it as a place where uber-rich and powerful liberals like to dump their money into, so the cash can be spread around to their pet projects without a direct link.

The Joyce Foundation supports such luminaries as John Ayers (William Ayers' brother).

There was one influential member on the board of the Joyce Foundation at the time the Chicago Climate Exchange got its seed money; someone instrumental in steering the funds towards the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange. They were on the board from 1994-2002. The founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Richard Sandor, said that he "knew (this person) well," which is perhaps how the money was awarded to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was a research professor. I'll get back to that person in a minute.

RICHARD SANDOR, CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE: I think it's a $10 trillion a year market.

A $10 trillion a year market? That's a lot to go around. In comparison, the value of U.S. company shares on major U.S. and foreign stock exchanges equities market was $15 trillion in 2009. There's a lot of money riding on this climate legislation. But remember: It's all about saving the Earth.

London-based Generation Investment Management sees the earning potential as well. That's why they purchased a stake in Chicago Climate Exchange and are the fifth largest shareholder. The cofounder of the London-based firm? Former Vice President Al Gore. I say cofounder because some of the other founders include David Blood (former Goldman executive), Mark Ferguson (Goldman) and Peter Harris (Goldman).

In 2006, the Chicago Climate Exchange got a nice boost of confidence when an investor stepped to the plate and ponied up to purchase 10 percent of the combined company. Cofounder of the Chicago Exchange said the investment was big and welcome news. The investor? Goldman Sachs.

Oh and I almost forgot: The person at the beginning of it all? The one on the board of the Joyce Foundation that secured the initial funding for this project? Barack Obama.

This is so weird. It's almost like those our government says are responsible for the financial collapse are the ones directly involved in the "solutions." So much for "changing the locks," Chris.

OK, now let's look at this. What you have is a structure. This is the building: the Exchange. You've got the structure, all the players.

So what are we missing? Well, we're missing the bill and the technology to make it happen; the machinery to make it happen.

You are trading air; it's hard to keep track of air. The good news is, the bill is being worked on by Republicans and Democrats. That's cap-and-trade.

The machinery, the device? A patent for such a device was worked on by CO2e.com CEO Carlton Bartels. Shortly after he filed for the patent on his system to trade residential carbon credits, he was killed in the 9/11 attacks. Bartels wife then shopped the idea around and was able to find a buyer. The buyer ended up being a guy who wasn't really a good guy, he committed massive accounting fraud and manipulated earnings in his company in order to make huge bonuses.

That person was Franklin Raines, who just happened to be the CEO of Fannie Mae at the time. The patent was eventually approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 — coincidentally the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Thanks to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner for pointing this out to us.

So now, Fannie Mae, who is congressionally mandated to "make housing more affordable," is poised to reap billions on a system that has nothing to do with housing except for that it would make housing costs go up.

Remember when Fannie purchased risky mortgages from banks, bundled them together and sold to investors as mortgage-backed securities? And then the housing market was absolutely destroyed? Well, former Fannie VP Scott Lesmes was responsible for that bundling.

Well, here's the good news: Not only will this new carbon trading "system" try the exact same bundling method (except with air); they are using the exact same guy: Scott Lesmes.

But, please, don't worry. The only ones involved in this are the corrupt Franklin Raines, Mr. redistribution of wealth Barack Obama, and all the people who the House and Senate are currently saying are the bad guys. Other than that, this should work out great.

It's almost like Goldman is willing to take a little heat now, in order to get a little piece of the $10 trillion green pie later. I challenge the media: Will anyone pick this story up? Will anyone question this and the timing of it all?

All of a sudden illegal immigration has leap-frogged global warming? Is it because Goldman has to take hits to get the global government structure done? And then they get the payoff? Or will you continue to say oh, he's crazy and not talk about the facts.

This is the email I sent out to my lists on... NOTE THE DATE... June 11, 2007:

Here’s today’s BSRepellant to pass on. ~ Matchett-PI ... who thinks a better name for the goracle is “MALgore” (as in MALpractice, MALevolent, MALfeasance, MALodorous, MALadjusted, MALfunctioning, MALformed, etc.

Maurice Strong, Al Gore - Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
By Judi McLeod Tuesday, March 13, 2007

There’s an elephant in global warming’s living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C.” of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.

It’s a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it’s one that’s working.

Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit.

Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.

Gore is the glitzy, media approved front man in the partnership, the flashing neon lights on the global stage warning the masses of the end of Earth, as we know it, and Hollywood’s poster boy for greening the silver screen.

The skeptics of man-made global warming believe that Gore and Strong have made climate change “the new religion”.

Climate change is not the first religion both parties have tried to make stick.

Along with former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong, currently president of the Earth Council, has been boasting of replacing the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter, a golden rule guide for how the masses should treat the environment.

Gore, who has given sermons at the United Nations sponsored Cathedral of St. John the Divine Church in New York City, is a promoter of the religion known as Gaia.

The two environmental gurus also share a belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. According to them, too many people, particularly in the U.S. are polluting the planet, emitting excessive Freon through their refrigerators and jacking up the air conditioning.

But the conduct of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the capitalist world is one for the books.

It’s a side of them that may have remained unknown had it not been for the investigative talent of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI).

MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day.

First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide,” wrote EIR.

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding.

When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers—including Maurice Strong—sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value.

On Oct. 20, 1996—a Sunday—the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.

By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

In that year, Gore, still U.S. vice president, was making news for “taking the initiative in creating the Internet.”

The leaders of the man-made global warming movement, you might say, get around.

Meanwhile Jumbo’s still in global warming’s living room, but the duo with the tiniest carbon footprints on earth continue to just tiptoe past him.

Here are a few questions Gore should answer:

1. You are a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner-Perkins and a co-founder of the United Kingdom-based investment firm of Generation Investment Management, each of which stands to gain financially from greenhouse gas regulation. Please describe any other financial interests that you have in any other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation.

2. In October 2008, the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story on how Kleiner Perkins had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations. What will be your share of any profits from these ventures?

3. How much of your own money have you contributed to Kleiner-Perkins, Generation Investment Management and other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation? If you have not contributed significant amounts of your own capital to these businesses, what, then, is your role in them? Are you a lobbyist? Are you the face of their public relations efforts? Is your job to run around scaring politicians and the public into enacting greenhouse gas regulation?

4. Is Kleiner-Perkins’ business plan to have you press for legislation and regulation favorable to its clients in order to make them more attractive and available for sale to the public, at which time Kleiner-Perkins would cash out, leaving the public invested in not-ready-for-prime-time companies that have dubious financial prospects and that are dependent on taxpayer subsidies?

5. Your co-founder with Generation Investment Management is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood. Goldman Sachs is lobbying for global warming legislation and is a part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap-and-trade legislation would be traded. Do you or Generation Investment Management stand to benefit in anyway from these relationships?

6. Generation Investment Management’s web site says the firm provides investment advice to clients. Who are Generation Investment Management’s clients and how do they stand to profit from upcoming environmental and energy legislation and regulation? Will these clients share their profits with you and/or Generation Investment Management?

7. When you left public service in January 2001, your personal net worth was perhaps $2 million. In 2007, your personal net worth was reported to be on the order of $100 million. How much of this fortune is related, directly or indirectly, to your advocacy of legislation to reduce “global warming”?

8. When you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, why did you not disclose to the Committee and to the public your relationships with Kleiner-Perkins and Generation Investment Management? Generation Investment Management’s web site says, “Integrity and honesty are the bedrock of our business. We demand the highest ethical standards in our work and in our personal lives.” In light of this statement, how to you explain your failure to inform the Senate Committee of your financial conflicts of interest?

9. You travel all over the world in jets and limos, own a houseboat, use 20 times more electricity than the average American, and stand to make a fortune that most millionaires would envy. Yet you tell Americans to downsize their lives, such as by limiting their travel, using less heat and air conditioning, and drying their clothes outside on a clothesline. Describe for us, in detail, your personal “carbon footprint.”

10. If you are wrong about humans causing catastrophic global warming, will you give all the money you “earned” from your alarmism back?

by Steven Milloy http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=31584

Mr. Milloy is the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com, co-founder of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, and co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. His columns and op-ed pieces have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Financial Times, and Los Angeles Times. He is the author of “ Green Hell,” a new book from Regnery Publishing.

I sent this info below out to my email lists 1 year ago on May 4, 2009:

The cost of President Obama’s climate flimflam has now been projected to exceed $2 trillion. In 2001, then Senator Obama took a $1.1 million grant from the radical Joyce Foundation to set up the Chicago Climate Exchange which will be heavily involved in the cap and trade scam.

Paula DiPerna, who was president of the Joyce Foundation when the grants were paid out, is now executive vice-president of the exchange. Most economists say that this cap and trade tax fiasco is an enormous tax on businesses and Americans at a time when both are in recession and will kill any economic recovery. 5

Global Warming Scam estimated to cost each U.S. Family $6,400 per year, more for other countries.
May 4, 2009 | Dr. Robert M. Carter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2244367/posts

Some Recent Estimates Of The Costs Associated With Green Power And Emissions Trading Legislation. OVERALL COST-BENEFIT — WILL THERE BE ANY? Mr Ed Milliband, the British Minister for Energy and Climate Change, recently released an updated Impact Assesssement of the U.K. Climate Change Act, asserting that “I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options”. Here, I compare the original costs:benefits estimated when the Act was tabled.

Some Recent Estimates Of The Costs Associated With Green Power And Emissions Trading Legislation. . . .

•A. OVERSEAS

1. Compensation is being demanded by China/India of 1% of the developed world’s GDP (more than $300 billion for Group of 7 countries): it is estimated that this will cost each US family US $1,900/yr (Wall St. Journal, April 3:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871985916184973.html?mod=googlenews_wsjgooglenews_wsj ).

2. President Obama’s intended carbon dioxide cap and trade bill is now estimated to now cost $1.9 trillion (up from $646 billion): this is an additional US $4,500 extra costs/family/yr. (The Washington Times, March 18:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/).

3. In the U.K., the range of estimated costs of their new Climate Change Bill is GBP 324-404 billion: this is GBP 16,000-20,000/family/yr. (Peter Lilley, U.K. MP, Letter to the U.K. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, at:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/04/letter-to-secretary-of-state-for-energy-and-climate-change/

4. Spanish study shows that since 2000, each job created in the alternative energy industry has been accompanied by the loss of 2.2 other jobs, and cost US $774,000 to create. (Bloomberg, March 27: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0)

•B. AUSTRALIA

Assuming a BAU usage of 560 Mt of carbon dioxide emissions in the first year after the introduction of an ETS, an Australian population of 22 million persons, and a carbon dioxide tax level of $30/t of carbon dioxide on introduction, and of $250/t later when the “floating price” (Garnaut) is reached, then the following costs can be calculated will be imposed on the taxpayer:
1. For $30/t - an amount of $3,054/family/yr; rising progressively to
2. For $250/t - an amount of $25,455/family/yr

Other increased indirect costs associated with emissions trading include unemployment caused by replacing coal-fired with wind power, transitional economic costs (estimated in the U.K. as roughly 1% of GNP), contributions towards the huge aid sums now being demanded by 3rd world countries (another 1% of GNP) and the economic growth foregone because of the whole exercise (Australian treasury estimate, 1.8% of GNP). These will result in an overall cost to the Australian community of more than double the direct charge levied upon carbon dioxide emissions.

C. CLIMATIC BENEFIT

DICE (dynamic integrated model of climate and the economy) modelling for the U.K. indicates that a reduction in emission of ~1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030, as targeted by British climate policy, might result in a reduction in temperature by 2100 of 0.00038 deg. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4849167.ece)

The U.K.’s share of global fossil fuel emissions in 2007 was ~1.7% of the total; Australia’s is ~1.2%
(CDIAC: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html).

Therefore, the possible effect of Australia cutting even all of its emissions is a theoretical reduction of global temperature of about 2/10,000 of a degree.

•D. OVERALL COST-BENEFIT — WILL THERE BE ANY?

Mr Ed Milliband, the British Minister for Energy and Climate Change, recently released an updated Impact Assesssement of the U.K. Climate Change Act, asserting that “I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options”.

Here, I compare the original costs:benefits estimated when the Act was tabled, and the new estimates just released by Mr Milliband which apply to the Act as amended.
1. TABLED - 60% reduction by 2050: Costs GBP 205 billion; Benefits $110 billion
2. AMENDED - 80% reduction by 2050: Costs GBP 404 billion; Benefits GBP 1.024 billion
Thus an initial benefit of roughly 50 p for every 100 p invested, has changed to a benefit of more than 200 p for every 100 p invested. The “benefits” calculated in the revised Impact Assessment mainly represent the avoided imputed damages that would be caused by allowing carbon dioxide to increase on a BAU path. Instead, the MARKAL model used assumes emissions limitation to no more than 450 ppm globally.

The many flaws in the U.K. Impact Assessment have been discussed by Dr. Roger Pielke (Jr.), who estimates that even using the most benefit-favourable estimates, the likely benefit: cost ratio to the British taxpayer of the Climate Change Act is 0.06 and that even that tiny and doubtful benefit is dependent upon the world (and not the UK alone) achieving a 450 ppm emissions stabilisation scenario. See: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-uk-climate-change-committee-illustrates-how-not-to-do-cost-benefit-analysis-of-climate-policies-5118.

Finally, it should be noted that the new British Impact Assessment estimates appear to exclude transitional costs (which could amount to 1% of GDP up to 2020), ignore the cost of driving British firms overseas, and assume that all businesses identify and immediately apply the most carbon efficient technology available. ..

About Dr. Robert M. Carter
Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).

Bob Carter’s current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181.

Bob’s research has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments. Bob strives to provide critical and dispassionate analysis based upon scientific principles, demonstrated facts and a knowledge of the scientific literature.

Dr. Carter’s biography and links to articles may be found on:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

I sent the information below out to my email lists on 12/08/2009:

Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) operates North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide. http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=821

The carbon-trading racket
Hot Air ^ | December 8, 2009 | Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/08/the-carbon-trading-racket/
Posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:02:23 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403896/posts

If one wants to see why carbon-trading schemes retain so much popularity among the political class, this Times of London exposé explains it well. Britain’s richest man, Lakshmi Mittal, stands to get even richer over the next few years, thanks to the efforts of politicians in handing Mittal’s companies a raft of carbon credits. Mittal’s companies can’t possibly use them all for several years, and so Mittal’s production firms can continue their emissions levels while making a fortune on the futures markets:

LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming. His company ArcelorMittal, the steel business where he is chairman and chief executive, will make the gain on “carbon credits” given to it under the European emissions trading scheme (ETS).
The scheme grants companies permits to emit CO2 up to a specified “cap”. Beyond this they must buy extra permits. An investigation has revealed that ArcelorMittal has been given far more carbon permits than it needs. It has the largest allocation of any organisation in Europe.
The investigation has also shown that ArcelorMittal and Eurofer, which represents European steel makers at European level, have lobbied intensively in Brussels. This has included threatening to move plants out of Europe at a cost of 90,000 jobs, and asking European commissioners to meet Mittal.

ArcelorMittal is now free to sell its surplus permits on the market or to hoard them for future use. The latter would allow it to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions for years, effectively undermining the point of the scheme.
Either way, the company will have gained assets worth around £1 billion by 2012.

Woman Who Invented Credit Default Swaps is One of the Key Architects of Carbon Derivatives
Zero Hedge ^ | 12/7/09 | George Washington
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2402958/posts

I have written hundreds of articles documenting that unregulated, speculative derivatives (especially credit default swaps) are a primary cause of the economic crisis.

And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won’t work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets.

Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity — in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases...

Who is Blythe Masters?

She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps, and is now heading JPM’s carbon trading efforts. As Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the above-linked Bloomberg article):

Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities...

As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank. Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap. Some in congress are fighting against carbon derivatives:

“People are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we’ll be in trouble,” says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You can’t stay ahead of the next tool they’re going to create.”

Cantwell, 51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right to ban unregulated financial products. “The derivatives market has done so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a very-high-stakes casino — except that casinos have to abide by regulations,” she wrote in a press release... However, Congress may cave in to industry pressure to let carbon derivatives trade over-the-counter:

The House cap-and-trade bill bans OTC derivatives, requiring that all carbon trading be done on exchanges...The bankers say such a ban would be a mistake...The banks and companies may get their way on carbon derivatives in separate legislation now being worked out in Congress... Financial experts are also opposed to cap and trade:

Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in July. “That’s why financial types like me like it — because there are financial opportunities”...

Hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands [and unrelated to Blythe Masters] says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities...

The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.

“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.” Indeed, as I have previously pointed out, many environmentalists are opposed to cap and trade as well. For example:

Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst in San Francisco for Friends of the Earth, isn’t convinced.

“Should we really create a new $2 trillion market when we haven’t yet finished the job of revamping and testing new financial regulation?” she asks. Chan says that, given their recent history, the banks’ ability to turn climate change into a new commodities market should be curbed...

“What we have just been woken up to in the credit crisis — to a jarring and shocking degree — is what happens in the real world,” she says...

Friends of the Earth’s Chan is working hard to prevent the banks from adding carbon to their repertoire. She titled a March FOE report “Subprime Carbon?” In testimony on Capitol Hill, she warned, “Wall Street won’t just be brokering in plain carbon derivatives — they’ll get creative.”

Yes, they’ll get creative, and we have seen this movie before ...an inadequately-regulated carbon derivatives boom will destabilize the economy and lead to another crash.

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING (Fannie/Freddie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=related

Now when I look back to late 08, I see a lot of interesting things:

September 7, 2008

McCain Moves Ahead 48-45

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/gallup-daily-mccain-moves-ahead-48-45.aspx

To this very day, I feel there is something strange about the Paulsen advice to Bush to do the first bailout. Paulsen is a Goldman Sachs guy and so is Schumer. (They are both Democrats) Remember Schumer caused a run on IndyMac late June of 08. I don’t think he is a dumb guy.

IndyMac: Mini Bank Run, Thanks to Schumer (late June of 2008)

http://www.housingwire.com/2008/07/01/indymac-mini-bank-run-thanks-to-schumer/

I see Goldman Sachs made out like a bandit in the outcome of all of this. I do not know for sure, but I look backward and forward to now and it all makes me wonder. I just did a Google search and found this:

http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/09/goldman_eyeing_assets_of_small.php

Is Goldman eyeing failed IndyMac?

Per Rep Paul Kanjorski, Democrat, Pennsylvania:

On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/tight-before-the-election-of-president-hussein-an-electronic-run-on-the-banks.html

Published September 23, 2008 at 2:26 PM
With Goldman Sachs Group Inc. converting itself to a bank holding company to strengthen its future, the New York-based financial institution is said to be on the prowl for deposits, but not necessarily an entire bank. Such speculation has led some in the media to ask whether Goldman could be looking to acquire the assets of failed IndyMac Federal Bank, which has fallen under the control of the FDIC.

Wednesday, September 24th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Presidential Address: Bush on Economy

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2116

Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:48pm EDT

Obama ahead of McCain amid Wall St. turmoil: poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48N17520080924

Glenn Beck Explains The Federal Connection,Goldman Sacks Corruption

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVQ3_ZaYB4

BUahahahahahahaha!

I think at this point, pretend president Obama, YOU have made enough money!

Greedy Wall street? Nah!

GREEDY GOVERNMENT.................YAHHHHHHH!

Of Course Goldman is right. They did NOT cause the mortgage crisis. It was caused by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA, Bawney Fwanks office ( Bawney is not running again,,get it?)
This attack on GS is a riot. The politicians are trying to divert public attention from where the real blame lies. I mean think about it. Fannie and Freddie did not even ask for Income Tax returns on the mortgage applicants for sub prime mortgages, which would have proven that the loans were not serviceable by those taking them out. People got to understand how the secondary mortgage market works.

Fannie and Freddie were calling the shots behind the scenes with the banks . Goldman Sachs just found a way to secure the high risk sub prime mortgages against default through insurance and default credit swaps.They filled a need. Now the Obama feds are blaming Goldman Sachs, who has BTW agreed to be the fall guy as requested by Obama? Its all dashed and stashed. WHAT A SIDE SHOW!!!! And why do you think that the regulators at SEC were playing porn 8 hours a day? Smile! The fix was in. The politicians wouldn’t let the regulators anywhere NEAR the problem. ( Imagine a regulator saying” Where in this mortgage documentation is the mortgagors tax return?) I mean think about THAT. The regulators didn’t even get to ask that simple question. they were told to lay off or else. This was political correctness at its worst, rather than the laws being enforced!

Linkage between Congress, Fannie Freddie, FHA got most of the dirty work done. Now the government has staged a fall guy investigation into Goldman Sachs, nothing more than a political show trial,, and will slap their wrists and meanwhile the real bandits get to walk? And then the whole thing is used to introduce arcane , draconian controls on WALL STEET and private investors , taxed to pay for the burgeoning supervisory federal bureaucracy to come?

Obama and his czars should be frog marched out of the White House and down into the Potomac, at exatly the same time that every conservative in Washington has a dump and toggles the toilet handle. I can’t believe that people cannot see through this fiasco!!!!!

AMERICA! FLEECED YET AGAIN!

Yes and Warren Buffet Knows exactly what is up. The government intends to continue to redistribute wealth by continuing to
advocate sub prime morthgage lending through fannie freddie. The feds are just tying loose ends up on their own boondoggle. Warren gets it. DO YOU?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.