Worlds biggest fraud... again by USofA

[urmiladuhan]

The problem with India is that people are pathologically selfish and self-centered.

I don't think selfishness and self centeredness is a country specific problem. How well and effectively rules and regulations get implemented, education standard of citizens etc are important in determining the face of a country.

[annch]

Scam or no scam, emission trading forms the basis for America/ (Obama)s' commitment to lowering the carbon emission levels.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566843777484625.html

Coming to the main discussion, I watched this documentary yesterday. Its called "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Its on you tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeY8oqAGhyA It is in 8 parts. You can find the links to all the parts at the link above.

The guy in the documentary makes a lot of sense. There is a lot of money to be made in Climate Science. Now they have this whole idea of trading "Carbon Credits." Under this scam (ooops I mean scheme) everyone will be allotted quotas for the amount of carbon they can produce. They will be charged for anything exceeding the quota and will be able to sell whatever is left of their quota.

Those who believe that America is finally giving in to the whole Carbon-emissions crap, need to realize the people behind this new scam. Its the big oil companies again. They have come to realize how much money is there to be made in the new "Green Economy."

Big Oil teaming with Marxist Environmentalists seems like an odd couple to me. But, it is a marriage of convenience. Big Oil gets to continue making loads of money at the cost of the consumer and the Marxist Environmentalists keep getting their cut of the loot in terms of donations and research grants.

As the dogs fight over a bone, I feel the only group left out is the consumers. Who is looking out for the consumers?

I believe that the right way to solve the problem is by the means of innovation. Energy saving technologies need more attention. By making consumers pay for their supposed carbon emmission and then transferring that money to Big Oil, Environmental groups, and Wall Street Hucksters is not the way to go.

Where will this nonsesne stop? Today they are thinking about making us pay for the air we breathe out. Someday they will make us pay for the air we breathe.

[annch]

Sumit,

Do you think energy saving technologies will not be part of the cap and trade system?

I believe that the right way to solve the problem is by the means of innovation. Energy saving technologies need more attention. By making consumers pay for their supposed carbon emmission and then transferring that money to Big Oil, Environmental groups, and Wall Street Hucksters is not the way to go.

[dahiyarules]

Sumit,

Do you think energy saving technologies will not be part of the cap and trade system?

The main focus of Cap and Trade system is on creating a Commodities Market for Carbon Emissions just like the one they have for energy sources like Oil, run by the Wall Street crooks. There is a lot of money to be made in the field. Don't be surprised that all of a sudden the Big Oil companies are jumping onto the Cap and Trade bandwagon.

I want energy saving technologies to be an option and not a mandate. Usually when the Government mandates anything there is someone making a ton of money who lobbied the government in the first place to come up with such mandates. Such instances are not in the consumer's best interest.

[annch]

Please do correct my understanding, but aren't you being idealistic and too optimistic in wanting energy saving technologies to be an option? Without a mandate, how would you implement (enforce?) these?

I want energy saving technologies to be an option and not a mandate. Usually when the Government mandates anything there is someone making a ton of money who lobbied the government in the first place to come up with such mandates. Such instances are not in the consumer's best interest.

[dahiyarules]

Please do correct my understanding, but aren't you being idealistic and too optimistic in wanting energy saving technologies to be an option? Without a mandate, how would you implement (enforce?) these?

See bold letters above. My problem is that the Government is enforcing these mandates to make a few people rich.

I am not being idealistic. I just want the Government to stop shoving things down consumers throats and treating them like little children. Let consumers decide what they really want.

[sidchhikara]

See bold letters above. My problem is that the Government is enforcing these mandates to make a few people rich.

I am not being idealistic. I just want the Government to stop shoving things down consumers throats and treating them like little children. Let consumers decide what they really want.

I don't think consumers decide most of the time.
I think most of the time its Wall Street - they have a foresight of one day of trade.
Their are certain things that are too complex to be left to consumers. Their is knowledge asymmetry here. Their is no tangible real-time benefit of green technologies that consumers can see and feel today. The government should take the lead. That being said, government has a flair for messing things up - that is a known. The way its gonna go down is - government will take a lead in certain areas - build a buzz - stress on green jobs by Obama and Hillary during campaign was a step in that direction (nobody did anything about it though!). Then they will slowly start seeing more and more green jobs - people will like the idea .... in the end rednecks will like the idea .... then everything will fall in place. FAte of the world depends on convincing rednecks - that is a sad situation... indeed !!

Then we need to ask ourselves a question - how long into the future are we gonna keep having the same energy sources that we have today - 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, 200 years ... forever?
If we are gonna change in the future, why not start now. There are solar technologies that need improvement .. fuel cell tech .. million other things. It looks bright ... but it needs money ... I will not bat an eyelid if it is funded by government. Let the scientists at the funded Universities handle the details ... I trust them more than government and Wall Street and consumers.

[dahiyarules]

I don't think consumers decide most of the time.
I think most of the time its Wall Street - they have a foresight of one day of trade.
Their are certain things that are too complex to be left to consumers. Their is knowledge asymmetry here. Their is no tangible real-time benefit of green technologies that consumers can see and feel today. The government should take the lead. That being said, government has a flair for messing things up - that is a known. The way its gonna go down is - government will take a lead in certain areas - build a buzz - stress on green jobs by Obama and Hillary during campaign was a step in that direction (nobody did anything about it though!). Then they will slowly start seeing more and more green jobs - people will like the idea .... in the end rednecks will like the idea .... then everything will fall in place. FAte of the world depends on convincing rednecks - that is a sad situation... indeed !!

Then we need to ask ourselves a question - how long into the future are we gonna keep having the same energy sources that we have today - 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, 200 years ... forever?
If we are gonna change in the future, why not start now. There are solar technologies that need improvement .. fuel cell tech .. million other things. It looks bright ... but it needs money ... I will not bat an eyelid if it is funded by government. Let the scientists at the funded Universities handle the details ... I trust them more than government and Wall Street and consumers.

Well! You have too look at the intentions and not to expectation behind the Government's Cap and Trade program. The Bill has been written by Wall Street crooks. (see: http://townhall.com/columnists/TomBo..._latest_scheme) If you investigate you will find the stench of Wall Street crooks all over the place.

The intention of the Government is not to do something about the Climate. It is their way of paying back for the millions of dollars they receive in contributions from the corporate sector.

Big Oil is hedging its bets by playing both sides of the game. On one side it is showing its aversion to cap and trade and on another side it is preparing to delve into the Carbon Commodities Markets to come up in the future.

I sincerely disagree your understanding of consumers as some dumbasses. Markets are an aggregate of consumer opinion, i.e. consumers shape the market and not the other way round.

Government does not have a magic mirror that can tell the appropriate commodity and the optimum quantities to be produced. Government understands only one language and that is "Political Contributions."

We live in tough times. Consumers need to realize that they need to prepare for the fight of their lifetimes. Last time the Government tried to decide on the commodities and quantities to be produced, the Berlin Wall came crashing. We the consumers are not some Guinea Pigs to be used in some "Green Jobs" experiment. Its time the Government started trusting the consumer's judgment.

[sidchhikara]

Well! You have too look at the intentions and not to expectation behind the Government's Cap and Trade program. The Bill has been written by Wall Street crooks. (see: http://townhall.com/columnists/TomBo..._latest_scheme) If you investigate you will find the stench of Wall Street crooks all over the place.

The intention of the Government is not to do something about the Climate. It is their way of paying back for the millions of dollars they receive in contributions from the corporate sector.

Big Oil is hedging its bets by playing both sides of the game. On one side it is showing its aversion to cap and trade and on another side it is preparing to delve into the Carbon Commodities Markets to come up in the future.

I sincerely disagree your understanding of consumers as some dumbasses. Markets are an aggregate of consumer opinion, i.e. consumers shape the market and not the other way round.

Government does not have a magic mirror that can tell the appropriate commodity and the optimum quantities to be produced. Government understands only one language and that is "Political Contributions."

We live in tough times. Consumers need to realize that they need to prepare for the fight of their lifetimes. Last time the Government tried to decide on the commodities and quantities to be produced, the Berlin Wall came crashing. We the consumers are not some Guinea Pigs to be used in some "Green Jobs" experiment. Its time the Government started trusting the consumer's judgment.

Yeah .... they have become quite pally - government and Wall St.
I still think there are lot of dumbass customers like any group of people.

I still maintain that they have to get the big things right - transportation and power - no other measure will have the same effect as these two.
All this Capn Cruch nonsense is just another instrument for Wall Street to play with.

I will probably have to read up on the research about advances in green tech - to see whats coming down the pipeline in the short term.

[annch]

As Sid posted, how long will consumers survive on "saved" energy.
Take any scenario of generating renewable/green energy, the cost would be passed on to the consumer.

If the consumers are ready to excercise their "choice", are they also ready to pay a higher price in this "price-sensitive" economy?

See bold letters above. My problem is that the Government is enforcing these mandates to make a few people rich.

I am not being idealistic. I just want the Government to stop shoving things down consumers throats and treating them like little children. Let consumers decide what they really want.

[dahiyarules]

As Sid posted, how long will consumers survive on "saved" energy.
Take any scenario of generating renewable/green energy, the cost would be passed on to the consumer.

If the consumers are ready to excercise their "choice", are they also ready to pay a higher price in this "price-sensitive" economy?

The problem with your argument is that your ideas are of the "one size fits all" kind. Costs are not the same to all consumers. Costs can include tangible factors like how much it costs in terms of money, how long will the investment last and intangible factors like how much a consumer can cut on emissions etc. Consumers can be rational or irrational. A rational consumer will choose an option that will help him or her minimize the costs and maximize the benefits.

Another assumption of yours is that without Government intervention there will be no innovation in the Green Goods Market. As of the moment you can run your entire home on Solar Power or Wind Power, run your cars on Hydrogen Fuel Cells and convert 99% of your household waste into energy. All these solutions are available privately if you are willing to make the investment.

One of the reasons consumers are hesitant to invest in such technologies is the high financial cost involved. One of the reason such technologies are expensive is because of the high Marginal Cost (cost of each extra unit of such commodities produced). Costs of such technologies will come down with time as more consumers buy into such technologies.

Government intervention will only add to the existing cost and consumers will be forced to pay for such technologies at costs higher than they can afford at the moment.

Cap and Trade regulations will add another cost for the consumer. As it is, in these tough economic times people are struggling to pay their bills. It is not the right time to squeeze the consumer for any more loot.

Innovations are adopted by markets at their own pace. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It is one of the best selling cars of all time. And, yes I did not say "best selling Hybrid Car of all time." I just wondered how we would have done if the Government had mandated everyone to drive a Hybrid Car. Look at how the H1N1 flu shot program is being run by the Government. A Government that cannot effectively give flu shots to its population cannot be trusted with just anything.

[annch]

I should have elaborated in my earlier post and said- Without a mandate, how would you implement (enforce?) these, if the government is not involved?
I agree, my arguement is "one size fits all". Whether you breakdown the cost into tangible or intangible, all the examples that you have given are resulting in consumers paying a higher price for innovation.
Same arguement as yours is being given for cap and trade as well , with consumers absorbing the cost of cleaner energy initially.
Whether green energy is an option or a mandate depends on how desperate the situation is. e.g, about H1N1. I asked the doc whether I should get it or not. She said it was optional. Her whole family had got the shots done since there had been two full blown cases within past 2 weeks in the hospital. So, did i take the shot, it was optional? Yes, I did.
Rational customers making an informed choice based on what - conflicting news and views and stats?

The problem with your argument is that your ideas are of the "one size fits all" kind. Costs are not the same to all consumers. Costs can include tangible factors like how much it costs in terms of money, how long will the investment last and intangible factors like how much a consumer can cut on emissions etc. Consumers can be rational or irrational. A rational consumer will choose an option that will help him or her minimize the costs and maximize the benefits.

Another assumption of yours is that without Government intervention there will be no innovation in the Green Goods Market. As of the moment you can run your entire home on Solar Power or Wind Power, run your cars on Hydrogen Fuel Cells and convert 99% of your household waste into energy. All these solutions are available privately if you are willing to make the investment.

One of the reasons consumers are hesitant to invest in such technologies is the high financial cost involved. One of the reason such technologies are expensive is because of the high Marginal Cost (cost of each extra unit of such commodities produced). Costs of such technologies will come down with time as more consumers buy into such technologies.

Government intervention will only add to the existing cost and consumers will be forced to pay for such technologies at costs higher than they can afford at the moment.

Cap and Trade regulations will add another cost for the consumer. As it is, in these tough economic times people are struggling to pay their bills. It is not the right time to squeeze the consumer for any more loot.

Innovations are adopted by markets at their own pace. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It is one of the best selling cars of all time. And, yes I did not say "best selling Hybrid Car of all time." I just wondered how we would have done if the Government had mandated everyone to drive a Hybrid Car. Look at how the H1N1 flu shot program is being run by the Government. A Government that cannot effectively give flu shots to its population cannot be trusted with just anything.

[dahiyarules]

I should have elaborated in my earlier post and said- Without a mandate, how would you implement (enforce?) these, if the government is not involved?

Just the same way people are buying energy efficient CFL bulbs, Hybrid Cars, Solar Panels, Energy Star Appliances, Energy saving windows and insulating their homes to save on heating and airconditioning. I beleive consumers need to be allowed to weigh on their costs and benefits and allowed to make an informed decision. You believe that the government can get things done by waving a baton.

I agree, my arguement is "one size fits all". Whether you breakdown the cost into tangible or intangible, all the examples that you have given are resulting in consumers paying a higher price for innovation.

All I am concerned about is whether consumers voluntarily adopt certain costs rather than being forced to adopt those costs. I dont have problems with consumers adopting any costs voluntarily.

Same arguement as yours is being given for trade and cap as well , with consumers absorbing the cost of cleaner energy initially.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Go look up Cap and Trade before you rant about it. Consumers are not paying for cleaner energy. They will be paying for their carbon emissions based on the amount of energy consumed by them.

e.g, about H1N1. I asked the doc whether I should get it or not. She said it was optional. Her whole family had got the shots done since there had been two full blown cases within past 2 weeks in the hospital. So, did i take the shot, it was optional? Yes, I did.
Rational customers making an informed choice based on what - conflicting news and views and stats?

What are you talking about? People are standing in lines for hours to get the H1N1 vaccine and still cant get it. You are lucky if you just walked in and got it. To make it worse, there is no guarantee that this vaccine works and the Government won't say anything about its side-effects. To make it worse Government has given immunity to all H1N1 vaccine manufacturers from all legal liability as a result of the side-effects of the vaccine.

If you are such a fan of the Government doing wonders you are in the wrong place. Thats just not the way things are done in this country. I am just glad there are enough people here to stand up and say enough is enough to this BS.

[annch]

Sumit, you are taking the discussion too personally.
Please note my revert as inserts in bold.

Just the same way people are buying energy efficient CFL bulbs, Hybrid Cars, Solar Panels, Energy Star Appliances,
Energy saving windows and insulating their homes to save on heating and airconditioning. I beleive consumers need to be allowed to weigh on
their costs and benefits and allowed to make an informed decision. You believe that the government can get things done by waving a baton.
Yes, work towards saving energy. But, in the long run you also need to work towards generating energy where govt inevitably would be involved.

All I am concerned about is whether consumers voluntarily adopt certain costs rather than being forced to adopt those costs.
I dont have problems with consumers adopting any costs voluntarily.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Go look up Cap and Trade before you rant about it.
Consumers are not paying for cleaner energy. They will be paying for their carbon emissions based on the amount of energy consumed by them.
I am living with a guy who is a senior analyst with an energy/ green/ new energy trading firm. I guess he would know much more than you in differentiating a rant from a fact.

What are you talking about? People are standing in lines for hours to get the H1N1 vaccine and still cant get it.
You are lucky if you just walked in and got it. To make it worse, there is no guarantee that this vaccine works and the Government
won't say anything about its side-effects. To make it worse Government has given immunity to all H1N1 vaccine manufacturers from all
legal liability as a result of the side-effects of the vaccine.
I talked about myself, and not the people. I was niether discussing how effective/ineffective H1N1 is. You missed the point that at times, option is not actually an option because of circumstances or the information available.

If you are such a fan of the Government doing wonders you are in the wrong place. Thats just not the way things are done in this country.
I am just glad there are enough people here to stand up and say enough is enough to this BS
I have not said a word about this govt or any other govt doing good or bad. BTW, cap and trade is not limited to US of A. So, I guess all the govts' are bad as per your arguement.
It was a genuine question put to you, who has much more knowledge than me, that how can you implement clean energy/ green energy.

[dahiyarules]

Sumit, you are taking the discussion too personally.
Please note my revert as inserts in bold.

I am not taking your remarks personally. I am just concerned about the implications of a mindset based on the belief institutional inefficiencies can trump market wisdom.

This discussion is not productive anymore. I am not going to make it any more redundant.

If someone else has something different to say I will see what I have to say. Thanks for your time.

[VirJ]

I.
Whether green energy is an option or a mandate depends on how desperate the situation is. e.g, about H1N1. I asked the doc whether I should get it or not. She said it was optional. Her whole family had got the shots done since there had been two full blown cases within past 2 weeks in the hospital. So, did i take the shot, it was optional? Yes, I did.
Rational customers making an informed choice based on what - conflicting news and views and stats?

First of all, just want to clear that I am totally ignorant compared to you guys on this. So my points might not make sense to you.

Hi Anju,

I totally agree with you that its the situation which decide whether green energy is an option or a mandate. Like for the above mentioned Hybrid car. At this time we dont have a big Petrol/Diesel crisis and hence its an option to have these hybrid car. They are fuel efficient and 'helps to keep our environment green' so we all want to have them but govt is not forcing us to sell or covert our existing cars. And for us as customers if this option is not financially feasible we wont go for it, doesn't matter ethically which one is correct as my immediate concern is my family. But if I am buying a new car I would probably go for hybrid car. In such situations customers have and should have choices. But if the situation is worse, Govt need to implement these through laws otherwise we would be heading towards bigger crisis.
I didn't want to jump in this argument. The whole reason I am posting this is to request you guys not to use words like US of A and calling someone selfish/self-centered or whatever. Even the OP has used US of A in the Topic. These things can be offensive to others. This being a public forum, we all should have respect for others

Thanks

[annch]

Thank you Vipin ji, for your supportive post.

A clarification - I used US of A for United States of America.

First of all, just want to clear that I am totally ignorant compared to you guys on this. So my points might not make sense to you.

Hi Anju,

I totally agree with you that its the situation which decide whether green energy is an option or a mandate. Like for the above mentioned Hybrid car. At this time we dont have a big Petrol/Diesel crisis and hence its an option to have these hybrid car. They are fuel efficient and 'helps to keep our environment green' so we all want to have them but govt is not forcing us to sell or covert our existing cars. And for us as customers if this option is not financially feasible we wont go for it, doesn't matter ethically which one is correct as my immediate concern is my family. But if I am buying a new car I would probably go for hybrid car. In such situations customers have and should have choices. But if the situation is worse, Govt need to implement these through laws otherwise we would be heading towards bigger crisis.
I didn't want to jump in this argument. The whole reason I am posting this is to request you guys not to use words like US of A and calling someone selfish/self-centered or whatever. Even the OP has used US of A in the Topic. These things can be offensive to others. This being a public forum, we all should have respect for others

Thanks

[VirJ]

Thank you Vipin ji, for your supportive post.

A clarification - I used US of A for United States of America.

Ji??? haha

Ok Good Anju! I thought otherwise. Ignorant me

[dahiyarules]

[FONT=Century Gothic][COLOR=blue]"global warming"... well the word is not new, but the news definitely are...

once again USofA is in news for apparently, which might turn out to be one of the biggest fraud to hit the planet earth. t

Bhai Brahm! Ek aat te ibbey mere dimmag mein aayi! Why are we going after the US for this whole Global Warming Email scam. University of East Anglia, where these emails originated, is in the UK and not US.

Can you please explain why you believe the US is a major party to manipulation of the Global Warming hoax?

[brahmtewatia]

bhai sumit, i did my homework for the next post, just before you hit your last post. anyways the context in the following post will answer a bit of your concerns... let me put it in an old hindi saying and not letting your tempers go high again, by involving UK to be the party of this 'holy mess'. also lets not get into the blame game and take the discussion further.
...
... the saying goes "चोर चोर मौसेरे भाई" :D

Bhai Brahm! Ek aat te ibbey mere dimmag mein aayi! Why are we going after the US for this whole Global Warming Email scam. University of East Anglia, where these emails originated, is in the UK and not US.

Can you please explain why you believe the US is a major party to manipulation of the Global Warming hoax?