How to develop carbon [swindle] credits and make money - Carbon Offsets Daily

The difference is that when you trade crude oil, someone actually has the product. You have the one gallon of oil. With carbon trading, you don’t have a product. You just have a couple of bytes on a server at the United Nations. It’s an abstract commodity, if you will. But it can be traded.

Aside from it being abstract, the market is also slightly different because it is exposed to political decisions. If the political winds move in a way that makes them say, no one wants these products anymore, obviously the price will fall. But if the political winds blow in another way, and politicians say we’ve not done enough to prevent global warming and we need to reduce emissions even more, the pricing will go up. So my point is, this market is not only driven by fundamentals but also by political decisions, and that makes it unique from other commodity markets. That’s the CER market.
...
What do you say to people when they are sceptical about CO2 emissions, arguing that it’s not necessary, or whatever their criticism may be? Do you hear criticisms? Or by the time they come to you, are they already convinced that they need to do something?
Well there are two types of critics. Both of them are clearly wrong, I would say. The first type of critic is still sceptical about climate change and the question of whether the problem is man-made. If you’ve got hundreds of scientists agreeing to the fact that the fast worsening of climate change is man-made, it’s amazing there are still people questioning this. There’s just an overwhelming amount of evidence, and it’s just very, very hard to find convincing evidence to the contrary. But there will always be people who will say crazy things.

newsminer.com • Bear necessities

When the Bush administration announced last year that it would not allow the polar bear’s new “threatened” status to add another layer of rules on the North Slope oil industry’s already well-regulated interaction with the bears, many pundits trumpeted it as another example of Bush’s alleged disregard for the environment.

The sneering came in the midst of a national presidential campaign in which the election of Barack Obama was portrayed as an antidote to such supposedly anti-scientific, politicized behavior on the part of Republicans.

On Friday, the Obama administration announced it will uphold the Bush administration’s polar bear policy. That’s because the policy makes sense, as Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar understood once he was able to review it outside the political fray.

Obama’s Emission Cuts: Pragmatic Suicide

But this isn’t an ordinary bill where you settle for what you can get through Congress after the usual horse trading. If there’s going to be a 40-day flood, you either build an ark or you learn to breathe underwater. Building half an ark is not a useful option.

Obama’s offer means that the US would be cutting its emissions not by 3 percent annually, which is the minimum global target if we hope to avoid more than 2 degrees of warming, but by merely half that amount. In the long term, this lack of action will inexorably lead to disaster.