The great climate fraud at your doorstep and in your wallet

Enough data has already been released to unequivocally prove scientific fraud.  Global temperature datasets that include the actual physical measurements of global temperature clearly demonstrate that there was a rapid rise in global temperature from around 1910 to about 1942, followed by a slow drop in global temperature from 1942 to 1975, at which time the world reverted to warming, which all global temperature datasets clearly show ended after 1998 followed by a cooling trend that is still continuing today.  Multiple scientists and politicians have called global warming alarmism a scam, even the greatest scam.

Despite the evidence, President Obama proposed an MIT climate scientist to be his new Secretary of Energy, and Dr. Munoz immediately dismissed further debate about the cause of climate change and wants to move on to discussions about solutions.  But there are no feasible solutions and he knows it, and his failure to look at the camera reveals his deception.  ‘Let’s Debate the Solutions as Opposed to the Driver.’ The confirmation of Munoz by the U.S. Senate makes the Senate look like fools, again. 58 second video.  So, how does it feel to have a finger stuck in your eye and wallet by the President, his cabinet and the Congress?   http://cnsnews.com/video/national/new-energy-secretary-moniz-climate-change-let-s-debate-solutions-opposed-driver

Global emissions increased by just half a billion tonnes of CO2 per year during the global warming of about half a degree C from 1910 to 1942.  Sounds like a lot, but it’s not.  This equates to each gigatonne increase in CO2 emissions causing a one degree C rise in global temperature.  As a result of increased CO2 emissions from post-war industrialization, from 1942 to 1975 global emissions increased from under 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 1942 to over 20 billion tonnes of CO2 by 1975.  Relative to the continuous and normal, though seasonal, exchanges of CO2 between the planet and the atmosphere, these amounts are trivial.  Moreover, human-contributed portion of the CO2 is only a small percentage of the overall CO2 in the atmosphere, and the total CO2 in the atmosphere is only 400 parts per million (ppm) or 0.04 percent.  If we lost 50% of that 400, most plants would starve and die.  The CO2 concentration in your exhaled breath is about 5%.   In the Jurassic period known for dense jungles and dinosaurs and abundant life, CO2 concentration averaged nearly 3000 ppm, or 0.3%, plants and animals were abundant, and the temperature was about 22 degrees C for 100,000 years … compared to 400 ppm and 14 degrees C in 2012.  Higher CO2 and warmer temperatures promote life.

During the cooling that occurred from 1942 to 1975 the global emissions increased by 16 billion tonnes of CO2 per year and based on the previous warming this amount of carbon should have caused 16°C of global warming but instead there was nothing but cooling.  It was only 13 years after this global cooling with contemporaneous rapid increase in global CO2 emissions that the climate models incorporated a “forcing parameter” or trigger that related global warming to increases in CO2 concentration on the basis that this increase came from humans and small increases in CO2 triggered larger increases in temperature produced by derivative effects from clouds and water vapor.  Humans produce only a fraction (3% to 4% according to UN IPCC reports) of the total CO2.

Since the people proposing the “forcing parameter” and climate models are self-claimed  climate specialists, these modelers would be fully aware that the globe cooled from 1942 to 1975 as the atmospheric CO2 concentration grew. The relationship of the “forcing parameter” expressed in the climate models of 5.35ln(C/C0) … in which C0 represents the reference level and C represents the new level of CO2 concentration … clearly shows that increases in CO2 concentration should produce an increase in temperature, or such is the claim of climate alarmists. But, this warming did not happen over the entire period from 1942 to 1975, and it is not happening today, therefore this parameter is clearly not valid.

The climate modelers also relate global warming directly to human-produced CO2 emissions, but these human-produced CO2 emissions were increasing dramatically as the global temperature dropped over these 33 years from 1942 to 1975, making this relationship completely contrary to physical observation.  Across the most recent 16 years to 2013, human-caused CO2 has continued to increase, but average global temperature has been flat to slightly down.  According to the mathematical relationship expressed in the “forcing parameter” created by global warming alarmists, if the CO2 concentration is increasing, then the temperature must increase.  Real world evidence has falsified the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Since physical data already existed that falsified the “forcing parameter” used in the climate models long before the models were run using this forcing parameter, and this had to be known by the modelers who claimed to be climate scientists, then it is clearly an open and shut case of scientific fraud.  If the modelers were unaware that this physical data falsified their forcing parameter it is still fraud because the modelers misrepresented their credentials as climate specialists.  Either way it is still fraud, and as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and global emissions of CO2 both continue to increase while global temperatures continue to drop the fraud becomes more and more obvious.

Greenhouse gases of all types summed together make up no more than 2 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere.  Total CO2, the current nemesis of alarmists, makes up 0.04 % of the atmosphere or 400 ppm, but humans provide only 3%-4% of that 400 ppm total.  Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse gases. CO2 and all the other trace gases are only 5 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are critical to making the planet habitable—keeping the Earth from being a freezing rock in space.  But humans contribute only 0.28% of all greenhouse gases.

It is not currently technically feasible to control greenhouse gases, even if it were scientifically determined that control was the right action.  Politicians might try to blame the alarmist climate scientists for scientific fraud, but they cannot escape the charge of fraud.  They have had the opportunity to hear the testimony of economists and engineers regarding the feasibility of controlling greenhouse gases.  They know it is impossible even if the entire world agreed to try, and they know attempting control is economically devastating to the economy.  They have proposed so-called green jobs.  But the evidence shows that these jobs are extraordinarily expensive, and they have been told that controlling CO2 is useless and counterproductive for the environment.  Politicians including the President and several in his cabinet are perpetrating fraud on the nation and funding the United Nations who is perpetrating fraud worldwide.

There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period), when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today.  For the past 400,000 years, temperature and CO2 levels have varied together. However, the Earth’s temperature has consistently risen and fallen hundreds of years prior to increases and declines in CO2 levels.  Clearly, CO2 concentration is not a controlling factor or a trigger or a “forcing parameter.”  The cause must occur before the effect.

There are risks and consequences that would result from a much warmer planet, if warming resumes.  Keep in mind that in geologic time we are at the end of one of the average 10,000 year warm periods which interrupt the longer 100,000 year plus “ice ages.”  We do not know whether the planet will resume warming or begin cooling.  We do know that the negative effects of cooling have been far worse for living things than warming.  Based on what we know today, any efforts to reduce human-produced CO2 would appear to be the wrong action to take in a cooling world.

Adaptation means taking steps now to adapt to changing conditions— such as using pesticides to kill malaria-bearing mosquitoes, improving farming practices and ending subsidies to coastal development and in river flood zones. These measures could virtually eliminate the threat of coastal flooding and cut in half the number of people projected to be at risk from malaria and hunger.  The US government has already wasted more than enough money on bogus climate change activities, more than $120 billion according to GAO and CRS, more than enough to fund real adaption to real and predictable environmental conditions.  But, as of today, we do not know whether we need to adapt to warming or cooling.

The intention of global warming propaganda over these last 30 years or so has been to persuade citizens of the world to allow themselves to be taxed for their carbon emissions, for their so-called “carbon footprint,” and to submit to increasing energy costs.  Regulation of carbon emissions allows governments to control most of daily life.  But also, the creators of this scam intend to enrich themselves via a commission, a percentage of each transaction, in a scheme of global trading in carbon credits and derivatives, which they have estimated will amount to $25 trillion per year in carbon credit transactions.  President Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation in the 1990’s which funded the studies and modeling of carbon credits.  The president of that board became the president of the Chicago Climate Exchange, (CCX) which began trading carbon credits in the U.S.  CCX was sold to the International Commodities Exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, enriching its founders.  The founders of CCX and its European equivalent include the names of the loudest climate alarmists in government and banking.

They intend to regulate carbon emissions from your home through your already federally regulated mortgage.  They invented a commodity to trade on the emissions and energy saving opportunity which would occur, according to a patent filed by Obama’s friend Franklin Raines, when he headed Fannie Mae.  According to US Patent number US 6,904,336 B2 granted June 7, 2005 to Franklin D. Raines et al and assigned to Fannie Mae and CO2e.com, “The present invention is directed to a method of residential emissions trading and a residential emissions trading commodity.  In particular an embodiment of the present invention is a method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity.”  Co2e.com also was granted additional patents, including US patent 7,529,705 granted May 5, 2009 “Electronic trading system for simulating the trading of carbon dioxide equivalent emission reductions and methods of use.”

Press Release: October 17, 2000

“Cantor Fitzgerald, one of the world’s leading international brokerage houses today announced the launch of an e-business marketplace that will empower companies to participate in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) trading, anticipated to become one of the fastest growing commodity markets in the world.

CO2e.com, LLC (“CO2e.com”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage, L.P. that has been working with PricewaterhouseCoopers, the world’s largest professional services organization, to develop this marketplace.

CO2e.com is designed to serve as the pre-eminent business-to-business online resource to understand, mitigate and manage the transition to a greenhouse gas (GHG) constrained future. CO2e.com incorporates a web-based, broker-assisted marketplace for project-based emission reductions.

The trading of commoditized greenhouse gas trading instruments will be powered by leading interactive B2B marketplace technology company eSpeed, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESPD) as they are introduced.

Cantor Fitzgerald and PricewaterhouseCoopers each intend to commit the support of their extensive global businesses to build the market.

Making the announcement in New York, CEO of CO2e.com and Managing Director of Environmental Brokerage Services at Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage, L.P., Carlton Bartels, said CO2e.com is a world first in the field of carbon commerce.

“CO2e.com builds upon a cornerstone 24-hour Internet trading market place for greenhouse gas emissions offsets to offer a full suite of carbon commerce support, including daily news service, briefings and specialized Web-search engine, decision making and trading tools, and access to a specially recruited group of international consultants and experts. “

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cantor+Fitzgerald+and+PricewaterhouseCoopers+to+Create+Global+Hub+of…-a066143896

Unquote

Unquestionably, the planned fraud by the alarmists is long range and well funded.  It is also large, pervasive and occurring right before your eyes.  In 2009, the major accounting firm Ernst & Young published a brochure describing the scheme and accounting, “Accounting for emission reductions and other incentive schemes” (link below.)

The second intention of global warming propaganda is to create a crisis and the fear of a crisis which allows government to control the supply (and thereby the prices and tax revenue on) hydrocarbon fuels with the least possible objection by the public.  Today, ninety percent of the oil and gas bearing lands held by the U.S. government are off limits to exploration and production of fuels.  This is done by pressing the public with guilt over their continue use of “dirty” and “polluting” hydrocarbon fuels and demonizing the producers of hydrocarbon fuels, and claims that the planet is running out of oil and gas.  Increasing the prices and reducing the supply of hydrocarbons allows so-called alternative energy sources (solar, wind, bio-fuel) to survive and to receive government funding through crony political subsidies, funds which are partially channeled back through campaign contributions into the coffers of “green” politicians.  Unfortunately, higher fuel prices transfer massive money from western nations to middle eastern OPEC nations who do not share most of the principles of western nations.  In addition to high prices for energy which are punishing the economy, another result is higher risk to national security and the perceived, but false, need to protect shipping and production of oil in the middle east.

In fact, natural gas and oil are sustainable fuels.  The planet is creating these fuels as it has over millions of years of life on this planet.  The creation of these fuels is slow, but the quantities are enormous and continuous.  As more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, then plants and animals grow faster and eventually die.  As these carbon containing species die or are consumed, the carbon in their bodies moves down the food chain, until eventually it has been degraded into natural gas (methane, CH4) dissolved in the water of the oceans.  There it is pressed into ocean sediments, and known as methane hydrates or clathrates on the sea floor.  In places the pools of methane deposits are kilometers deep.  These sea bottom deposits are pressed beneath the continental shelves at the boundaries of the ocean shelves and continental shelves.  There are enormous pools of natural gas and clathrates on the sea floor, far more than all of the oil and gas that humans have ever used or discovered.  As life continues and dies in our oceans (which cover 75%  of this planet) then even more methane is created.  CO2 in the atmosphere is metabolized into living organisms which eventually die or are consumed by other organisms.  Eventually the organisms are degraded to the smallest organic molecule, methane, and much of that methane ends up in ocean sediments which slowly become gas and oil in or under the oceans and land.   That is the cycle of life on this planet.

CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and it is the key to eternal, sustainable, non-polluting hydrocarbon fuel.  If it were possible to withhold or sequester a significant amount of CO2, then growth of life forms would slow.  Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.  When the oceans warm, CO2 and methane (CH4) are released into the atmosphere.  Methane released into the atmosphere is almost instantly converted to CO2.  When the oceans cool, at night or in winter, more CO2 is dissolved into the oceans, the methane from the last cycle having been already converted to CO2.  CO2 is rapidly dissolved into the water at the ocean surface; colder water holds more CO2 than warmer water.  Over years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases as the average ocean temperature slowly warms.  That warming has been occuring since the end of the last ice age.  When the planet is warming, the increasing CO2 trend is more rapid.  Henry’s law defines the relative amounts of these gases which are in equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans at a given temperature, air pressure and salinity; 6 to 8 times more gas is dissolved in the water than is found in the air above it, and that is before the gas reacts with the massive amount of buffering elements dissolved in the oceans.  The evidence for massive buffering of CO2 in the oceans is found in the layers of calcium carbonate (limestone) and other carbonates which cover the ocean floors and continents of this planet.  It requires the extreme heat of volcanoes to reverse this process, that is to convert the limestone back into atmospheric.  On the other hand, methane from living entities in the atmosphere at standard temperature and pressure converts immediately into CO2.

There is an excess of calcium and other minerals in the oceans relative to the entire amount of carbon on the planet.  In other words, all of the carbon on the planet could be dissolved in the oceans, where it would be plated out as limestone and other carbonates.  When the planet freezes, such as the long ice ages, the amount of CO2 in the oceans increases, as compared to CO2 in the air.  CO2 is more soluble in cold water.

Today, unfortunately, millions of people have been propagandized by the global warming agenda.  The alarmist climate propaganda has been put out over 3 decades by extremely well-funded people beginning with mis-education of educators, political leaders and news media.  The truth is that the human influence on global temperature is so tiny that it is statistically insignificant, but the chance of anyone learning or hearing that is also very small.  Clouds and water vapor are the dominate greenhouse gases and they cannot be controlled by humans by any technology known today.  The variance in the measurement of temperature due to clouds and water vapor is much higher than the warming effect which can be attributed to humans.  But, since clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere cannot be controlled, the politicians at the United Nations did not include clouds and water vapor in their list of greenhouse gases, even though responsible for more than 80% of the greenhouse warming effect.  Climate change alarmists don’t discuss cloud or water vapor.  The reason is that the human contribution to warming is buried in the noise from measuring water vapor and clouds, and they know that.  This is scientific fraud.

The measurement of the temperature effects due to human-contributed CO2 cannot be statistically distinguished from the variability in the measurement of the temperature effects due to water vapor and clouds; when honest scientists say the human contribution to climate change is insignificant the previous statement is precisely what they mean.  The greenhouse effects due to water vapor and clouds can be measured and they are large, but there is variation in the measurement, for example plus or minus 1 degree variation in a 20 degree change in temperature measured with or without clouds.  But the entire human contribution is less than that 1 degree variation.  So, was that variation caused by human CO2 or caused by error in the measurement of clouds?

One tiny human part of the overall process that we can measure is the increasing tonnes of CO2 that humans add to the atmosphere.  This CO2 would  improve the living condition for almost all life on this planet.  Higher CO2 concentration has been shown in historical models, many scientific papers and live experiments to increase growth of most living things.  But, unfortunately, mis-educated and devious people want to reduce emissions of CO2 even though plants on this planet are not far from starvation levels for their CO2 food.  One of the underlying reasons for this long term scam is the ideology of Thomas Malthus, that is, human population is excessive.

How many millions of people have died from starvation and malnutrition due to these mis-educated and devious people and their “green” initiatives?  Biofuels like ethanol have increased the cost of food worldwide.  This is not theoretical.  People especially children are starving and being denied electricity even though hydrocarbon fuels are plentiful.  When will climate alarmist be punished for actions which amount to fraud and genocide?

More than $120 billion of U.S. taxpayer money has been spent since 2008 on green initiatives, based on false and alarming claims about the effects of CO2 and climate change.  A global cabal wants to tax carbon worldwide and trade carbon credits, all at your expense.

References:

No claim of originality.  Large portions are copied, borrowed, or edited from the work of  Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary, Canada.

  1. U.S. Patent No.” US 6,904,336 B2, granted June 7, 2005
  1. “Accounting for emission reductions and other incentive schemes” (link below.)  Ernst & Young.  http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Accounting_for_emission_reductions_and_other_incentive_schemes/$FILE/Accounting_emission_reductions_July09.pdf
  1. “The world’s first markets for trading emissions credits . . . ,” Dow Jones Business News, Oct. 17, 2000. cited by other .
  2. “Cantor Fitzgerald and PricewaterhouseCoopers to Create Global Hub of Carbon Commerce: Market to be Powered by B2B Leader, eSpeed,” Business Wire, Oct. 17, 2000. cited by other .
  3. “Cantor Fitzgerald and PricewaterhouseCoopers to Create Global Hub of Carbon Commerce: Market to be Powered by B2B Leader, eSpeed,” Press Release, Oct. 17, 2000. cited by other .
  4. John J. Fialka, “New Emission-Credits Market is Expected To Resemble Fast Commodity Exchange,” The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17, 2000. cited by other .
  5. “EU Introduces 10-Year Environment Plan,” Reuters, Oct. 17, 2000 as published by EIN Publishing Daily Newsletter “Global Warming Today,” dated Oct. 26, 2000. cited by other .
  6. “Cantor Fitzgerald, PWC Join on GHG Trading,” Business Wire, Oct. 17, 2000 as published by EIN Publishing Daily Newsletter “Global Warming Today,” dated Oct. 26, 2000. cited by other .
  7. Jason T. Cone, “Trading greenhouse gas emissions goes online,” Earth Times News Service, Oct. 18, 2000. cited by other .
  8. “Want to Trade in Carbon Emission Credits? CO2e.com Is the Answer!”, EarthDot, Oct. 18, 2000. cited by other .
  9. “Emissions Trading Site Launched; CO2e.com: Brief Article,” Energy Intelligence Group, Oct. 18, 2000. cited by other .
  10. Andrew C. Revkin, “7 Companies Agree to Cut Gas Emissions,” The New York Times, Oct. 18, 2000. cited by other .
  11. “Cantor and PricewaterhouseCoopers Develop On-line Greenhouse Market,” The Oil Daily, Oct. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  12. “Cantor and PricewaterhouseCoopers Develop On-line Greenhouse Market,” Utility Environment Report, Oct. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  13. “CSU Study to Examine Carbon Sequestration,” CSU-Chico Release, Oct. 23, 2000 as published by EIN Publishing Daily Newsletter “Global Warming Today,” dated Oct. 26, 2000. cited by other .
  14. “CO2 May Cause Ragweed to Increase,” M2 Communications, EIN Publishing, Oct. 24, 2000 as published by EIN Publishing Daily Newsletter “Global Warming Today,” dated Oct. 26, 2000. cited by other
  15. “CO2e.com–The Global Hub for Carbon Commerce,” Environmental Finance Supplement, Oct. 2000. cited by other .
  16. Cheryl A. McMullen, “Web site fosters emissions trading,” Waste News, Nov. 6, 2000. cited by other .
  17. Janet Ginsburg, “Letting the Free Market Clear the Air,” Waste News, Nov. 6, 2000. cited by other .
  18. Eric Sorenson, “WashingtonStateResearchersMonitorForests to Help Save Environment,” The Seattle Times, Nov. 13, 2000. cited by other .
  19. “CO2e.com, the Global Hub for Carbon Commerce, Goes Live at COP6 Climate Conference,” Business Week, Nov. 14, 2000. cited by other .
    Vanessa Houlder, “Business sees green controls as a prospect, not just a cost,” Financial Times, Nov. 18, 2000. cited by other .
  20. “BT Moves to Halt Brain Drain,” The Sunday Telegraph, Nov. 18, 2000. cited by other .
  21. Mary Fagan, “PwC to launch online CO2 exchange,” Electronic Telegraph, Nov. 19, 2000. cited by other .
  22. Michael Harrison, “Row Mars Launch of Online Market for Trading Greenhouse Gas `Permits`,” The Sunday Telegraph (London), Nov. 19, 2000. cited by other .
  23. “PwC/Greenhouse gases ING Group,” The Sunday Telegraph, Nov. 19, 2000. cited by other .
  24. Mary Fagan, “PwC to launch online CO.sup.2 exchange,” The Sunday Telegraph, Nov. 19, 2000. cited by other .
  25. “Greenhouse emissions trading site opens on internet,” Platt’s Commodity News, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  26. Michael Harrison, “Row mars launch of online market,” The Independent, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  27. “What the Sunday Business Papers Said,” The Independent (London), Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  28. Steve Levine, “Ex-Soviet States See Gold in Emission Quotas,” Wall Street Journal Europe, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  29. “PwC launches internet emissions trading bourse,” Reuters, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  30. “Global Marketplace for Carbon Commerce Opens for Business,” Press Release, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  31. “CO2e.com Announces the Completion of Two Significant Trades,” Press Relase, Nov. 20, 2000. cited by other .
  32. Steve Levine, “Decline in Industry Proves Profitable for Soviet Plants,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 21, 2000. cited by other .
  33. “Consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers and financial brokers Cantor Fitzgerald have launched a global Internet exchange for trading greenhouse gas emissions,” ZD Net Australia, Nov. 21, 2000. cited by other .
  34. “Ontario Power Generation buys carbon credits,” Megawatt Daily, Nov. 21, 2000. cited by other .
  35. “Canadian group agrees to CO2 reduction deal,” Megawatt Daily, Nov. 21, 2000. cited by other .
  36. Yasmin D. Arquiza, “Meet tackles effect of climate change on environment,” Business World (Philippines), Nov. 22, 2000. cited by other .
  37. Simon Mann, “Pollution traders ready to clean up,” The Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 23, 2000. cited by other .
  38. Simon Mann, “Business–Clearing the air on trade in CO2,” The Age, Nov. 23, 2000. cited by other .
  39. “Estonia could earn billions with greenhouse gases,” Estonian News Agency, Nov. 23, 2000. cited by other .
  40. “PwC reveals CO2.com exchange,” Accountancy Age website, Nov. 23, 2000. cited by other .
  41. “Houston: we have carbon trading,” Utility Week, Nov. 24, 2000. cited by other .
  42. Nick Hordern, “Global warming: the greens have the numbers,” Financial Review (UK), Nov. 25, 2000. cited by other .
  43. Nick Hordern, “Industry breathes easier, for now,” Australian Financial Review, Nov. 27, 2000. cited by other .
  44. “Petro Source Logs CO2 Trades,” The Oil Daily Co., Nov. 27, 2000. cited by other .
  45. “Online trading–emissions,” European Chemical News, Nov. 27, 2000. cited by other .
  46. Wade O’Leary, “Online greenies–Bottom of the Harbour,” The Daily Telegraph, Nov. 27, 2000. cited by other .
  47. “E-exchange continue to trade pollution allowances,” http://www.silicon.com, Nov. 28, 2000. cited by other .
  48. “Global law firm Baker & McKenzie . . . ,” AAP News Feed, Nov. 28, 2000. cited by other .
  49. Caspar Henderson, “An exchange in climate,” Director, Jan. 2001. cited by other .
  50. “EU maps out CO.sub.2 strategy,” Steel Times, Mar. 2001. cited by other .
  51. Roger Milne, “UK and Denmark mull carbon trade linkage,” Reed Business Information (UK), May 4, 2001. cited by other .
  52. Cait Murphy, “First/Opinion/Slings and Arrows–Kyoto is Bush-Whacked–That’s okay,” Fortune, May 14, 2001. cited by other .
  53. Robin Lancaster, “Carbon goes dotcom,” Energy Power Risk Management, May 2001. cited by other .
  54. Germana Canzi, “Greenhouse Gas Mkt Set to Double in 2001,” Dow Jones Newswires, Jul. 20, 2001. cited by other .
  55. Paul Brown, “UK may take lead in carbon trading,” Guardian, Jul. 24, 2001. cited by other .
  56. Vanessa Houlder, “Carbon trading plans may be hampered by the politics of pollution,” Financial Times, Aug. 14, 2001. cited by other .
  57. Laurent Belsie, “Firms climb toward `climate neutral` Boldest bids to cut emissions now being led by some big polluters of yore,” Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 20, 2001. cited by other .
  58. “Greenhouse Gas Trading Simulations an Essential Tool,” Carbon Monitor, vol. 6, Issue 9, Sep. 2001. cited by other .
  59. “The Climate for Business is Changing,” Environmental Finance Supplement, Oct. 2001. cited by other .
  60. Ron Feemster, “Don’t like emissions? Trade ’em under Kyoto,” undated. cited by other .
  61. Chinn, Lily N., “Can the Market Be Fair and Efficient? An Environmental Justice Critique of Emissions Trading”, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80 (1999). cited by other .
  62. Driesen, David, “Is Emissions Trading An Economic Incentive Program?: Replacing The Command And Control/Economic Incentive Dichotomy”, 55 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 289 (1998). cited by other .
  63. Gorrell, M., “Taking Pollution To The `Bank` Pays Dividends Program Offers Utah Firms A Reward For Cleaning Up”, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1995, at D3. cited by other .
  64. Holly, Chris, “EC Moves On Greenhouse Emissions Trading Plan”, The Energy Daily, 28 (53), Mar. 2000. cited by other .
  65. Jarman, M., “Utilities Set For Pinch In Resources”, The ArizonaRepublic, Dec. 2000, at B1. cited by other .
  66. Pallasch, Abdon M., “City To Receive Millions From HUD To Reclaim Brownfields; 5 Industrial Locations Expected To Attract New Factories, Jobs”, Chi. Trib., Nov. 17, 1998, at 5. cited by other .
  67. Porter, N., “Legislators Begin Emissions Talks Resolution Sought To Untangle Conflict”, Bangor Daily News, Aug. 4, 1994. cited by other .
  68. Rosenfeld, Arthur, et al., “Policies To Reduce Heat Islands: Magnitudes Of Benefits And Incentives To Achieve Them”, Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, vol. 9 (1996) at 177. cited by other .
  69. “Cold Facts On Hot Topic”, The Calgary Sun, Nov. 18, 2000, at SE3. cited by other .
  70. “EPSA Says California Discourages Generators”, Generation Week, 2 (44), Nov. 1, 2000. cited by other .
  71. “EPSA: Don’t Exclude New Plants From NOx Trading”, The Electricity Daily, 9 (108), Dec. 5, 1997. cited by other .
  72. “Green Power Is Too Gray”, Electrical World, 211 (5), May 1997, at 44. cited by other .
  73. “Climate Change: A Backgrounder; Petroleum Communication Foundation”, Oilweek, 45 (46), Nov. 14, 1994, at S1. cited by other .
  74. “Indiana House Passes Bill Allowing Pre-Approval Of Compliance Costs”, Utility Environment Report, Apr. 19, 1991, at 3. cited by other .
  75. “SCAQMD Proposes Adding Natural Gas Cuts To Its Reclaim Trading Program”, Utility Environment Report, May 27, 1994, at 9. cited by other .
  76. “Waffling On Warming: Canada Has No Clear Policy On Climate Change”, Calgary Herald, Mar. 2, 1998, at A16. cited by other .
  77. California Energy Commission, “1999 Electricity Generation Emissions Report”, Jul. 1999. cited by other .
  78. “Green Light”, The National Journal, 25 (24), Jun. 12, 1993, at 1421. cited by other .
  79. “Canada’s first greenhouse gas emission reduction exchange opens,” Oil and Gas Inquirer v12:7, Jul. 2000, at 40-41. cited by other .
  80. Colton et al “Keys to Successful Carbon Dioxide Market: Program Structure and Secondary Trading,” Energy Efficiency and Global Environment–Biennial Conference, 1995, at 61-74. cited by other .
  81. U.S. Appl. No. 09/967,375, entitled “Systems and Methods for Electronic Trading of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emission Reductions”, filed Sep. 28, 2001 in the name of Carlton Bartels et al.,. cited by other .
  82. U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,825, entitled “Systems and Methods for Electronic Trading of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emission Reductions”, filed Aug. 16, 2005 in the name of Carlton Bartels et al.,. cited by other .
  83. U.S. Appl. No. 10/824,954, entitled “Systems and Methods for Trading Emission Reduction Benefits”, filed Apr. 14, 2004 in the name of Stephen Drummond et al.,. cited by other .

About budbromley

Life sciences executive, retired
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.