Novel carbon-trading [swindle] could stop large-scale extinctions

"Dollar for dollar, a carbon-focused approach contributes little to slowing biodiversity loss and will save far fewer species than a biodiversity-focused strategy that targets the most imperiled forests," said lead author Oscar Venter, doctoral candidate at the University of Queensland.

A biodiversity-based system would change where carbon funds are spent, resulting in less money for areas like the Amazon where relatively few species are endangered because considerable forest remains. Spending to stem biodiversity loss would favor high-biodiversity nations in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean, where most forests have already vanished.

Green Energy in U.S. Proves to Be an Elusive Goal - NYTimes.com

The Great Green Hope for lifting America’s economy is not looking so robust.
...
Last week, the Gamesa wind turbine plant in western Pennsylvania announced it was laying off nearly half its 280 workers. Last month, General Electric said it would close a solar panel factory in Delaware, while Evergreen Solar, which received $58 million in state aid to build a 900-employee plant northwest of Boston, said it would move some assembly to China, costing 250 jobs.

ClimateGate as Rorschach Test - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

Despite the rather dramatic early response to ClimateGate, one senses that there are many other shoes to still be dropped.