Posted on 11/06/2010 11:28:07 PM PDT by SmartInsight
Raising $100 billion a year of climate finance by 2020 is challenging, but possible through mechanisms including carbon markets, domestic carbon taxes and a variety of international transportation taxes, a United Nations advisory group said in a report Friday.
Earlier this year, the UN's Ban established the panel, which includes U.S. National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, billionaire financier George Soros and Deutsche Bank vice-chairman Caio Koch-Weser.
The financing will be used to support mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries--in particular, for the poorest and most vulnerable communities.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It will INCREASE global warming - I'm getting heated up just contemplating it...
You have to cut up 30% due to fiat inflationary policy
So really it’s only 70B what’s that among friends.
His only worth 11Billion and that’s on paper only.
They are moving on the auction of Carbon credits before the Fraud starts to become a litigation target. sort of a take the money and run scam..
But a wiki piece might be enlightening:
Summers’ role in the deregulation of derivatives contracts
On May 7, 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a Concept Release soliciting input from regulators, academics, and practitioners to determine “how best to maintain adequate regulatory safeguards without impairing the ability of the OTC (Over-the-counter) derivatives market to grow and the ability of U.S. entities to remain competitive in the global financial marketplace.” [20] On July 30, 1998, then-Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Summers testified before congress that “the parties to these kinds of contract are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies.” (SOROS?) Summers, like Greenspan and Rubin who also opposed the concept release, offered no proof that the contracts would not be misused by financial institutions. Instead, Summers stated that “to date there has been no clear evidence of a need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market, and we would submit that proponents of such regulation must bear the burden of demonstrating that need.” [21] This argument suggests that the default position in the disagreement was that Summers, Greenspan, and Rubin were right, and that anyone (i.e., Brooksley Born) who disagreed with them bore the burden of proving their position. In fact, subsequent events have proven that Summers, Rubin, and Greenspan misjudged the dangers posed by derivatives contracts.
The lack of regulation that allowed A.I.G. to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities was a direct result of efforts by the Treasury (first under Rubin and then under Summers), the Federal Reserve (under Greenspan), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (under Arthur Levitt) to deregulate the derivatives markets. The first response to the CFTC Concept Release was issued as a joint statement from Rubin, Greenspan, and Levitt who stated that they “have grave concerns about this action and its possible consequences.” [22] Levitt and Greenspan have admitted that their views on this issue were mistaken. Levitt told WGBH in Boston that “I could have done much better. I could have made a difference.” Greenspan told a congressional hearing that “I found a flaw ... in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.” [23] [24] When George Stephanopoulos asked Summers about the financial crisis in an ABC interview on March 15, 2009, Summers replied that “there are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last eighteen months, but what’s happened at A.I.G. ... the way it was not regulated, the way no one was watching ... is outrageous.”
At the 2005 Federal Reserve conference in Jackson Hole, Raghuram Rajan presented a paper called “Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?” Rajan pointed to a number of potential problems with the financial developments of the past thirty years. [25] The problems that Rajan considers include skewed incentives of managers, herding behavior among traders, investment bankers, and hedge fund operators who suffer withdrawals if they under-perform the market. Rajan also discusses (on pp. 337–40) the problems associated with firms that “goose up returns” by taking risky positions that yield a “positive carry.” This is how the infamous Joseph J. Cassano impressed his superiors at A.I.G. for a decade while sowing the destruction of the firm. [26] During the boom years of the housing market, the credit default swap contracts that A.I.G. Financial Products sold provided a stream of premium payments to the company with no expense stream. That’s an example of what Rajan calls “goosing up returns” with latent risk. Rajan asks (on page 388) “If firms today implicitly are selling various kinds of default insurance to goose up returns, what happens if catastrophe strikes?” This is a fair question.
$99.9999 billion will go toward private jets, five star hotels, and fat expense accounts for UN administrators.
They are a siphon for taxdollars, and produce NOTHING of value, whatsoever.
You’re going to pay more so that Al Gore and George Soros can get even richer. :)
All for reasons they can’t prove or even demonstrate.
Brush up on your Italian.
The word for bye is “Ciao”, the German banks’ VC’s name is Caio. Close, but no cigar.
big money is like a magnet for bad ideas.
There's too much booty in the idea of world government for it to be anything but inevitable, imho.
Mar-tay, you might want to moderate your caffeine intake and go for walks in the evening.
So you think Soros and Summers grabbing Air credits to use for finacial gain if, and it is a big IF, they can get Congress to go along with the GW/CC Fraud. Especially with Soros and other wheelers and dealers funding the frauds efforts.
But, since I questioned the connection. Please tell me where I am wrong.
Your parenthetical addendum to the passage I cited suggests there’s something conspiratorial about it. But it has been the governing principle of securities regulation since Soros was in diapers. That is, that “sophisticated investors” do not need additional legislation to protect them from themselves. They’re professionals and they can mediate and litigate their differences at their own expense. “Unsophisticated” market participants, i.e. the general public, have recourse to the state for protection from professionals if necessary. Mr. Summers’ statement is simply a restatement of that principal, and is perfectly in line with historical precedent.
And you appear to be out of your league:
http://www.mail-archive.com/
Well, perhaps, but at least I'm a gentleman.
I knew I was wasting my keystrokes.
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.