Posted on 01/28/2007 5:17:13 AM PST by Calpernia
...Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., support Kyoto Protocol-like plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to trade permits to emit greenhouse gases – a.k.a “cap-and-trade.”
...investment banking firms, such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, that plan on profiting from trading so-called “carbon credits.”
(snip)
Anda starts out by saying that, “Whether you believe the science [of global warming] or not is beside the point. Policy should be more about risk than proof.”
(snip)
Although he doesn’t mention this in his Financial Times article, one big future winner may be Anda’s own firm. Morgan Stanley announced last October that it “plans to invest in approximately $3 billion of carbon/emission credits, projects and other initiatives related to greenhouse gas emissions over the next five years.”
...Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs, part owner of the European Climate Exchange and the Chicago Climate Exchange – the exclusive marketplaces for trading carbon credits.
Goldman Sachs doesn’t even have to place a bet on whether carbon credits are going up or down in value. Under cap-and-trade, the climate exchanges would be government-sanctioned climate bookies, so to speak, making money from the forced trading of carbon credits.
(snip)
As outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote in the Dec. 18 Wall Street Journal, cap-and-trade “would cost the average American family more than $2,700 a year while having no measurable impact on global temperature.”
It’s no wonder that Morgan Stanley’s Anda urges us to ignore the scientific debate about global warming and to rush to embrace cap-and-trade. A few thousand dollars from each of us might mean billions for his firm and other Wall Street “winners” – giving a whole new meaning to “green investment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“would cost the average American family more than $2,700 a year while having no measurable impact on global temperature.”
That's the point where I bailed out on reading this article.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/08/27/stories/2006082703600100.htm
Carbon credits: It's advantage China
Excerpt:
China appears to be flooding the carbon trading market with certified emission reductions (CERs) or carbon credits, which are priced lower than those of Indian projects. This is because China has much higher volumes of CERs in the world market compared to India. Each CER represents one tonne of carbon dioxide emission reduction.
As per annual averages, China now accounts for 43 per cent of total CERs registered at the UN, while India accounts for 12.11 per cent. Chinese projects can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 36.66 million tonnes per year till 2012, while Indian projects would reduce about 10.17 million tonnes.
These are Indulgences from the Church of Global Warming.
Exactly what I was thinking the other day.
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.