Let's play pretend!

So from this article, I followed the link to the quoted "Harper's magazine" article and found the following nuggets:

But Kyoto also allows companies to purchase “offsets,” credits from emissions-reducing projects in developing countries. Such projects, which currently account for as much as a third of total tradable credits, are overseen not by the E.U. but by the United Nations.

That would be the UN, that most august and incorruptible organization that has brought you such examples of good governance and oversight such as the Oil-for-food and Sex-for-food scandals. Yup, they're the ones who are going to be overseeing the running of planet Earths' developed industries.

And unlike traditional commodities, which sometimes during the course of their market exchange must be delivered to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

I would bet this the first time in history that such an audacious snake-oil sales pitch has ever had such a global scope. Re-read that paragraph, let the understanding of the market for pretend goods sink in.

According to a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the margin of error in measuring emissions from the cement and fertilizer industries can be as high as 10 percent. For the oil, gas, and coal industries, the margin of error is 60 percent; and for some agricultural processes, the margin of error can actually reach 100 percent.

+/- 100% ??!?!?! In what field of human achievement is an error rate of +/- 100% remotely acceptable? Hell, even +/- 60% ??? Yet this is the program the UN wants the entire world to sign on to.

Also the article mentions that Goldman Sachs now hosts a carbon trading desk and is intimately involved with the setup of carbon offsets market in the US. That would be the same Goldman Sachs that aided the Greek government in cooking the books that has precipitated the current Euro(€) crisis and the possible collapse of the Greek economy.

Indeed, carbon exists as a commodity only through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, who determine both the demand, by setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing criteria for offsets.

So the entire carbon trading "market" has been invented out of thin air by people who's primary job is to lie, policed by a multinational with a reputation of dodgy accounting on nationwide scales, overseen by the world's most corrupt organisation.

What could possibly go wrong?

Cause for Pause

From an article supporting The Warming:

"Those emission estimates are not very accurate compared to high-calibration devices," says Michael Woelk, CEO of Picarro, a California-based manufacturer of such a device for measuring CO2 emissions. "No country today is using scientific instruments to monitor and calibrate the effect of policy," not even the European Union, which has an emissions trading scheme for greenhouse gases.”

Yet here we are, in Australia, about to pass legislation taxing CO2 output because the gutless and cowardly Opposition is split about whether The Warming is just a load of codswallop, or does spell the end of days. Just in case my emphasis in the previous quote didn't quite hit home, WE CAN'T ACTUALLY MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY TYPE OF LEGISLATION OF CO2.

From The Australian:

“After an all-day debate over climate change, the Opposition Leader unilaterally declared the Coalition would back Kevin Rudd's carbon emissions trading scheme.”

In a one brilliant move, Mr Turnbull has split the Coalition (the Nats are not going to vote for the ETS), split the Liberal party (skeptics ahoy!) because the fear of a double-dissolution and an election called too soon which would inevitably lead to another 4 years in the wilderness,
Turnbull is making a stand on what he believes the Australian electorate wants.

In some ways he is in a damned if you do-damned if you don’t moment. But the timing of the ETS, the manner of the debate on the legislation (ie. minimal due to KRudd wanting to pass this before the Copenhagen Summit), and the revelations of gross scientific malpractice are not stopping this relentless push for higher taxes that people don’t want, won’t be effective, and will hamstring our economy.

Support the ETS, and split the party and coalition = unlikely to win next election and probably lose the position of leader of the party.

Don't support the ETS, keep the coalition and party together = electorate believe that the Liberals wan't to kill Gaia, unlikely to win next election.

Carbon Careers

Following a web link from one of our suppliers at work, they were very excited about the introduction of "green technology", which I suppose is different to "technology" somehow, and they had the logo of this company helping them achieve their carbon goals.

From their about us page:

Carbon Planet is a global carbon management company whose mission is to enable every individual and business on the planet to manage their contribution to the defining issue of our age, global warming.

Note: it's the defining issue of our age.

The scientific case for human impact as a primary cause of global warming has been convincingly made in study after study, and good science is the first step on the road to unlocking the inherent business benefits.

Study after study after study, layer upon layer upon layer. "Convincingly made"...that's sounds like their pretty sure of their convictions.

"Good science", you know, as opposed to "bad science" or "medium science" or "green technology".

Science, you idjits, is science. It is neither good, nor bad. There can be no qualitative adjective describing "science". If it is "bad science" or an experiment that does not follow scientific principles, then it is no longer "science", it is what would be commonly termed "a fraud" . "Good science" is kind of like "good electricity" or "good water". The fact they feel the need to emphasise this, gives me the impression they're not really 100% committed to this "good science", but are clearly very happy to be making money off it.

They also have two pdfs on their "flight emissions calculator" page. I could only stomach one, and then only got to page 4. Two glaringly obvious 'errors':

the importance of aviation for the economy and employment is far less than its importance for climate change

Oh really?!? So I guess you'd be looking at the total amount of goods travelling in and out of a country via air, comparing that to sea carriage, with respect to the GDP? No...no they didn't do that. Something about fuel imports and stuff...

aviation is overwhelmingly an activity of the richest elements of society, measures to combat the environmental impact of aviation would not adversely impact the poor

Wow, I'd guess you'd better tell that to these people, and these ones, and these ones, etc etc etc. Those damn rich people! Always going and getting drowned by tsunamis, starving themselves and getting caught up in natural disasters. They should bloody well start taking responsibility for themselves and you know, like, stop asking countries to fly them aid. I mean how selfish are they?? Worried about their own insignificant lives when we have a PLANET TO SAVE! Don't they know it's THE defining issue of our age?

Thou shalt offset thy carbon usage

From this:

"In our postmodern, anything-goes, Oprah-ised, non-judgmental era, it is increasingly difficult for elite elements to lay down the law on what is right or wrong, or to induce guilt and shame in the wayward masses, or to make nakedly moral judgments about the apparently soulless, greedy populace. Instead, ostensible scientific fact - "evidence" about individuals' disgusting impact on their surroundings - has become the main means through which the elites hector us and police our behaviour. "

It is amusing to note that in this day and age where we teach kids there is no such thing as "good" or "evil", it's all relative to your point of view, unless of course you're talking about Western culture (in which case it is all capital E "Evil"), that it prevents those who know better to actually pronounce moral judgements on anyone or anything. So to get around this self-imposed hurdle we have the "scientisation" of morality.

"No, it's not the fact you are acting the same way as the rest of the smelly masses and we don't approve (because you're smelly and part of the masses), it's that your consumption is 'evil' and killing the planet. See look at this Documentary! Look at these graphs! It's science you see, so it is Truth. So stop taking those flights to your holiday destinations, stop reproducing, and for Gaia's sake, accept these draconian carbon measures immediately and WITHOUT DISSENT! And stop asking why we need to take those same flights, have huge homes, and why our caviar has to travel more food miles than you ever will."

Carbon...it's a sin.

I wonder what the carbon footprint of Hell is?