There's gold in green: profiting from climate change

Well Duh!!

Of course the government takes advice of its croonies and presents it as facts so as to give them tax payers money, how else do you expect them to get very well paying jobs after they leave office. Their pension is crap you know!

Hands Up

Who's surprised??

Title

And once the good old Gov has made all this above board and these companies are raking in billions, how many jobs for the boys will this create?

More government horseshit

If those on the panel are scrutinised as much as the man-made climate change skeptics, then the profiteering will quietly go away. That's because they started out with the idea that climate change is man made and ignore anyone who disagrees. Zero scrutiny of their arguments and tar them all with the same brush.

As El Reg states:

"if greenhouse gas emissions are capped by law, then the legal right to emit these gasses becomes a commodity that can be traded".

They want to create another economic bubble, but this time around the environment. They're creating a bubble with legislation, not growing tulips. The size of the cap becomes hugely economically significant. Will they raise it or lower it and by how much? There will be huge financial interests opposed to the removal of the cap.

Bubbles burst eventually, even when backed by government.

This one is bonkers.

It's a question of trust.

Do we trust them?

No.

Where the protests?

How come the British public puts up with this? Are they so busy scoffing their faces or do they really hug trees and worship Gaia? Or are Britons so lacking in balls that they cannot protest because they fear some silly camera is watching them?

"Scrutiny"?

Shouldn't El Reg's reporting on climate change be put under some scrutiny?

Most of what is being written here on the subject has been rebunked, but that won't be mentioned and, if I go by my experience, comments stating that have at times little chance to be published.

Invent the sin, sell the penance.

This is so like the medievall 'indulgences' scam.

Invent the sin, sell the penance. Nice work if you can get it.

Paris - because she knows all about "sins of emission".

A nugget of purest green

Worth more than other nuggets in the current climate

Mine's the one with the re-runs on GOLD

Does it really matter?

If the government actually listened to these advisory panels, they would not be upgrading cannabis back to a class b drug.

Carbon Trading is GREAT

People have been cleaning up due to this nonsense for a long time now, I made an absolute shedload of cash trading the Dec-07/Dec-08 EUA spread, spent it on loads of long-distance flights, expensive plastic nonsense I don't need and a sports car. Kerching!

Conflict of interest

So who is best to go on the commitee? People who know nothing about the products or industry?

A politician fits in perfectly!

There is always a trade-off, no one with any useful knowledge is ever devoid of interests in those areas. I mean, would you expect the co-editor of the climate resistance blog to right a balanced article related to climate change?

imagine...

imagine? IMAGINE??????? FFS why imagine? I've been observing it for over 2 decades.

Soviet-style Cronyism

The censoring of thousands of scientists against the idea of "manmade global warming" by the media and government is just astounding. Never in the history of the Soviet Union, East Germany or China such wide censorship achieved. What we are witnessing is Soviet-style cronyism, so it is no surprise to learn how much wealth and power Russia stands to gain from the the carbon market.

Already our politicians and bankers like Peter Mandelson and Nat Rothschild have been seen on holiday with the likes of Oleg Deripaska, and the EU wants to force countries like Poland to buy energy from Russia instead of using their own resources.

Our politicians are selling our freedoms away. They are fed up with the idea of democracy and prefer a totalitarian government while keeping the masses entertained on bread and circuses, but leave us nothing to save by increasing the cost of living.

Just cap

I'm sure the author would support this solution. No credits, no market, no trading, no conflicts of interest.

Since when?

Interesting article, but the question is: so what? I mean, since when have governments (or not) being doing exactly that, in any and all areas where money might be involved? No novelty here, obviously.

A little "correction":

"carbon offsetting – paying poor people not to develop their economies"

If it was that, it would be fine, but I suspect you are wrong. It should read something like "carbon offsetting -- paying stupidly rich people from poor countries not to develop their economies". If the money of such offsetting DID go to societal improvement and all that, it would be better than developing the economy (which is probably unsustainable). In fact, a very few people in the poor countries will see this money, and the rest will live on in shit as they have since forever: anyone who believes "trickle down" economics has drool trickling down their chins, or have never seen how the Third World works.

@Soviet-style Cronyism

"The censoring of thousands of scientists against the idea of "manmade global warming" by the media and government is just astounding"

What an idiotic thing you just said, regardless of whether man-made global warming is real or not. I suspect you are also a creationist, or closely allied with one, because that's exactly what they say once every five minutes. You are bullshitting.

Give us a list of at least 2001 (less than that and it's not "thousands") climate scientists who are being censored, and how. You can't probably give us 20, let alone 2000. If you can't, just shut up then.

paul

j

ever heard of the global warming petition project with 31072 scientists having signed as of late?

Accounting Solution

That's what the "Carbon Market" is. An accounting solution to a real problem:

"Hot ashes for trees, hot air for a cool breeze, cold comfort for change."

@Paul

Does that include Dr Zharkov like the Oregon petition? Or maybe it IS the Oregon Petition, rising from the dead...

@paul bolander

You mean the petition signed by 31,000 people over the past 10 years by anyone in the USA with a college degree, regardless of what subject their degree is in?! Just tick the box to say you have a college degree (and if you don't lie), then all of a sudden you're a 'climate scientist' !!!!

LOL. This is a classic example of the lengths the deniers will go to in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant. Maybe you should check the validity of the petitions you quote as evidence before you quote them. I seriously doubt there are 1/3 this number of qualified climate experts in the world.

Agreement on both sides

The Kyoto protocol gave us the Clean Development Mechanism, through which poorer countries are paid not to emit greenhouse gases wealthier countries can't afford, or can't be bothered, to eliminate themselves. This is one of the "offsetting" schemes to which you refer.

Factories in China and India were, until recently, releasing fluorinated gases that have a much greater forcing effect that an equivalent mass of carbon dioxide. These factories were paid a total of $4.7bn to eliminate these gases from their emissions. The actual cost of their elimination was closer to $100m. ROI = 4700%, which is tasty pork in anyone's language.

Yvo de Boer apparently has no problem with this: "The Clean Development Mechanism prompts a company to do something that it would not normally do, and then the company starts to make a profit".

You don't have to be a "climate change sceptic" to find this obscene. My source for the above information was George Monbiot:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/08/monbiot-yvo-de-boer-climate

Unfortunately your outrage at "conflicts of interest" is going to get you nowhere. In fact I'm not at all surprised that these people laughed in your face and hung up on you. If the government proposes to reduce carbon (or equivalent) emissions, they need to speak to people who know how to do so. And, in turn, these people know how to make outlandish sums of money in the process.

So don't blame the companies or advisory boards. Blame the pusillanimous governments and international bodies that devise ineffective legislation and easily-outwitted regulatory schemes.

Either that, or found your own advisory board, composed of taxi-drivers, plumbers and journalists, all of whom are skilled in propounding strongly-held opinions, but, I submit, know next to nothing about how to get the job done. At least it would be untainted by accusations of cronyism.

Conflicts

Of course, oil companies funding sceptical scientists to try and prove that AGW is bunk is not a conflict of interest at all. Oh no. That's just keeping the establishment on its toes, evoking the spirit of Galileo etc etc.

Do you have any conflicts of interest to declare, Ben?

Welcome to Capitalism...

Step 1) Find an underdeveloped niche in an existing market, or, better still, a new market.

Step 2) Exploit it like mad

Step 3) Rake in the profits

Step 4) Sit on your profits when the niche or market eventually goes belly up

The main problem I have with the AGW argument is the lack of moderate voices. On the one side you've got the sceptics who either (a) deny global warming is occurring in the first place, or (b) claim it's a natural process, the earth's suffered worse conditions in the past, and nothing we do will have any effect whatsoever; and on the other hand you've got the greenies who'd very much like us to return to pre-industrialised society - cars and roads are evil, aeroplanes are the devil incarnate, and anyone who is incredulous enough to burn anything should be faced with a stiff fine.

And separate from both camps you've got the businessmen described above who'll fall into whichever camp is most convenient to allow them to make a quick profit...

"Attention! You have been found guilty of unauthorised combustion of materials. £500, please!"

"You've got no evidence"

that isn't no....

@mittfh

"The main problem I have with the AGW argument is the lack of moderate voices."

How about the 95%+ of Climate Scientists (ie the ones not bought and paid for by the oil companies) and most scientifically enlightened people? Virtually every claim made by the deniers relies upon ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge.

The way you spit 'greenie' alludes that you're another ignorant who believes the hate fuelled trash spouted by the people that will do anything, say anything to 'disprove' AGW. There is only one known planet in the universe that can support human life. If looking after our only life support system makes you a 'greenie' then that doesn't make you some kind of pariah. Very few of the people who accept the vast wealth of peer reviewed science by credible climate scientists want to take the world back to pre-industrial conditions. Yet another of the foaming claims made by the deniers.

There are inherent conflicts of interest on this issue

I know this might sound like a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but in this whole sorry saga there are INHERENT conflicts of interest - we have scientists on the IPCC who are being paid to research climate change - so .... if one of their tests actually proved there was no climate change being caused by humans, they'd be out of a job..... hmmmm okay then better make sure the tests *definitely* show a degree of plausibility that the climate is being affected. Notice that no one has EVER come out with any concrete evidence that the climate is definitely being changed by humanity, only an 80% possibility. That way, when we're all paying fifteen quid a unit for electricity, twenty quid a litre for petrol and living like we did in the stone age, these "independent scientists" living in their huge ivory towers (with heated swimming pools) will comment "oh well, actually we got it wrong - there wasnt so much of a danger after all". These scientists actions speak far louder than words, and if they were all so concerned about climate change, they wouldnt be maintaining mansions, they wouldnt be using aircraft to fly all over the world to attend conferences and they would be quite happy to show if they had any hidden agendas for climate change. We are being robbed in the name of the environment and it's high time organisations such as the CCC and the IPCC started putting up or shutting up about their theories, their business opportunities and exactly how they can help big business squeeze even more tax out of those of us who actually work for a living rather than receiving state "research funding" to build second houses.

Okay rant over

Mine's the one with the keys for the 6 litre gas guzzler.......

conflict of interests

So how many environmental campaign groups did The Register talk to before pressing the submit button? One or was that none? If you are right, they should be queuing up to spread the dirt. DEFRA was spot on, there is no story. Jeremy Leggett set up Solar Century because he could see the writing on the wall 15 years before anyone else. And it seems that The Register cannot even see the wall let alone the writing. For goodness sake, get out of the office and go and listen to Jeremy Leggett and Oliver Tickell, who regularly speak in London, and write your stories with an open mind. Climate Change is not The Register's main theme and it shouldn't have to use it as crutch to maintain readership.

I disagree with your premise

This is a most absurd join-the-dots exercise, even by the standards of an undergraduate blowhard who should never have been let loose beyond the confines of his anti-science blog dungeon.

Here are the facts the author is anxious about:

1. Some people are concerned about climate change, because they’ve read the science.
2. A subset of these people campaign to reduce the carbon emissions which science shows affect the climate.
3. Another subset of the original group founds or works for companies who develop carbon-reducing technologies, not least because business gets things done, for good or ill.
4. Some people are in the Venn diagram intersection of the two subsets.

OMG!!1! Shock horror, people who actually understand both the science and the politics of this issue both campaign on the climate and work directly to cut emissions.

I’ve got another way of describing these people: personal heroes of mine.

@Paul M. the gullible and ignorant

I'd double check your numbers Paul (that's if you even bothered to check them in the first place), rather than repeating what your mates say in the pub or what you read in the right-winged 'hate for any other view' websites. Although the plethora of aforementioned websites will have you believe a large proportion of credible scientist are sceptical, in fact the number is tiny. Isn't that the usual tactic of the unholy alliance of industrialists that see the Earth as theirs to exploit and hate any protection of the environment and the religious who think God controls everything including the climate?! Weird how they've now made out anyone at odds with their worldview are part of some brainwashed 'religion' !! Wake up.

Considering the way scientific consensus works (something you obviously have no party to) it'd be very difficult to kick out scientists that disagree with the majority; dissenting voices are an integral part of the way scientific agreement is made, and theories strengthened.

"If you're a "climate scientist" and you dissent from the AGW mainstream and the AGW payola will go to someone else."

And how much payola is there each year from the likes of Exxon to rubbish AGW AGAINST ALL AVAILABLE SCIENCE!? Exxon makes $1billion a day, more than the entire climate science funding budget each year. I'm surprised you didn't say so (as people as brainwashed as you usually do!) but follow the money!

Weird how you think that quoting a few individuals, whose credential are usually exaggerated or fabricated, and whose agendas are unknown, makes your argument complete. Let me quote you a few quotes:-

"Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."

And here's one that explains the people you quote:

"In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases. A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, [which] would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom."

Sounds just like the individuals you quoted!!

You haven't mentioned junk science yet. I'll tell you where it came from:

"There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. 'Junk science' meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. 'Sound science' meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive."

How about the views of a few respected societies. The consensus of hundreds of member scientists, not just individuals that may be bought:

"The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.”

"The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."

"In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

I could go on all night. I doubt any of it would sway your 'religion'. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be too cold to support life. Burn fossil fuels, and you release more CO2, a greenhouse gas, and temperatures rise. CO2 has been steadily increasing in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and consequentially temperatures rising. Not difficult to work out what's going on, so long as you have an open mind that is!

@AC

AC -- "Just tick the box to say you have a college degree (and if you don't lie), then all of a sudden you're a 'climate scientist' !!!!"

You mean like every supposed 'climate scientist' I see on TV chatting AGW-is-true-i-tells-ya bollocks to earn themselves a few quid...