Smokin' Joe: "And who will the brokers of the transfer be? cashing in on every transaction?(Hint: No food for oil!) "
MonroeDNA: "Close, but it is really about transferring wealth from capitalists to socialists. "
MonroeDNA is the winner! The socialists in question are entities of the EU.
Carbon trading won't be directly perfomed between invidual countries, but through a "clearing house" in the EU. Acting much like a stock market, carbon will be the commodity being traded. Supply versus demand will affect the bidding and the end-price for credits will include profitable commisions for various EU middlemen.
Carbon dioxide traders set for summit
Another profit center will be the largest insurers in the world who will no longer have to dismiss losses to "acts of God". One of the strongest motives to pin a human face onto climate disasters lies in the realm of the insurance industry. Blaming mankind for climate change is key to insurance companies now being able to recoup losses by trying to make corporate entities or whole countries pay for damages. After all, God doesn't send out checks, so man will have to foot the bill. Through the efforts of the green/socialist/eco-idiots, they're getting closer to achieving this end.
For many years now, new articles have popped up about insurers screaming about losses due to "global warming". Here's a small sample of many....
Insurer issues global warming warning
Climate threat to home insurance
Of course, all of the "global warming" nonsense hinges upon the notion that mankind is somehow influencing the Earth's climate in an unnatural way, by artificially increasing atmospheric "greenhouse gases" (GHGs). This is absurd at best and is perhaps the weakest part of the argument.
Not counting water vapor, a naturally occuring and variable GHG, all other manmade and naturally occuring GHGs add up to a little over 400 Parts Per Million (PPM). That's the same as saying 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Can anyone tell me how 0.04% of the atmosphere can influence the heat capacity of the remaining 99.96%??
I thought not.
Let's look at it another way...
What you see below is a a graph that I made in Excel comparing CO2 and Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA) trends going back to 1856 using freely obtainable data sets from NOAA and other sources.
Finding a more than negligible correlation between these two trends would be a stretch. Even if you add the other "greenhouse gases" such as CO, CH4, etc., the trends diverge even more. The degree of effect of "greenhouse gases" (aside from water vapor) upon climate is really only based on theory and little more. Ask any "scientist" who supports the "human-enhanced 'greenhouse'" theory the following questions and get ready for a lot of "maybe's", "could-be's", and "theoretically's"...
· At what threshold in PPM of GHG's does a noticeable "greenhouse" effect occur?It's all barf.
· How can a mere 400 PPM influence the heat capacity of the other 999,600 PPM?
· If a GHG can "trap" heat by infrared absorption, this also means that a GHG is also a good conductor of the resulting heat energy. Therefore, wouldn't the GHG's actually help carry heat to higher altitudes? (Water vapor, also a GHG, is an excellent example of this.) If so, why is this not the case according to satellite and radiosonde balloon observations?