Obama's Global Warming Scam

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, Mar 3, 2013.

  1. pspr


    Few realize that the "green movement" is about building large personal fortunes for an elite few. As with all robber barons, it is about the money. It is why President Barack Obama laid out his threat to again bypass Congress and ignore the American people during his 2013 State of the Union address. Mr. Obama will attempt to force his ill-conceived green energy plans into existence with the stroke of his pen via Executive Orders:

    "I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy." --President Barack Obama, February 12, 2013

    Obama is determined to resurrect his green energy schemes by drying up America's access to oil and gas no matter the pain inflicted on American families and businesses. Having put the coal industry on life-supports, his next target -- restricting power plants that generate electricity to homes and businesses.

    What the President hides behind the curtain and does not reveal is his alliance with international green elites, White House and Wall Street cronies and energy regulatory czars who have orchestrated a CO2 carbon-taxing scheme that puts billions of dollars into their own hands. It's a money scheme. Three years ago, the global-warming money transfer scam surfaced and named not only this president, but a former Democrat president and vice-president as participants planning to accumulate vast personal wealth as a result. One need only ask, why did Al Gore so confidently tout that he was destined to become the "first global-warming billionaire?"

    Long in the designing, the elements were close to being in full play. The plans were drawn, the carbon-credit trading exchange registered as the Chicago Climate Exchange was formulated (New York Times // Trading symbol CCX), set to both transfer and stash cash, the green barons' privately-owned Chicago bank was on the ready and the right president was in office to perpetrate the scam on the American people. That is, until the great global-warming-climate-change fraud stopped the United Nations-supported, elite cadre of well-connected political, banking and Wall Street associates in their tracks. British Freedom quotes The Times of India:

    "Billionaire globalists like George Soros fund green groups and seek to promote the globalist 'climate change' scam as a way to enrich themselves and infiltrate developing nations in order to financially exploit them and their natural resources for profit."

    The June 2009 Bloomberg article, "Sandor Got Obama's Nod for Chicago-Style Climate Law" by Jim Efstathiou Jr., reported that a carbon-capping bill set to be imposed on American businesses was the cornerstone of Obama's environmental agenda. Bloomberg quotes CCX founder Richard Sandor as saying that the bill "...began "way, way to the left with provisions to push U.S. utilities into bankruptcy." The article further reads: "Sandor launched the Chicago Climate Exchange, or CCX, in 2003 after getting two research grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation. Obama was on the foundation that gave us the grant, Sandor said. We know him well." CCX reportedly now operates under the auspices of Environmental Financial Products.

    When "global-warming-climate-change" was exposed as a blatant fraud, the American people and a Republican House refused to play ball. By doing so, they stymied the global clique of politicians and socialist ideologues who remain ready to bring America to its economic knees for their own financial and ideological gains. Even so, Mr. Obama is making another high-stakes play to push through his green agenda to fully activate the global CCX exchange despite the high cost to even the poorest of Americans.

    While Obama is gearing up to invest billions of America's tax dollars into the green abyss, other countries are backing away. Never mind that China and India refuse to put a dime into the scam. European nations have already experienced a severe hit to their economies and negative blow-back from their citizens. In the face of worldwide data to the contrary, Obama claimed during his State of the Union address that: "...the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15." How an American President can make such an erroneous claim to the American people in the face of existing facts reveals him as sorely misstating or misinformed.

    A February 27, 2013 news release by the Global Warming Policy Foundation states that it has highlighted the global warming standstill for many years against fervent denial by climate activists. Its Chairman, Nigel Lawson, states: "...there has been no further recorded global warming at all for at least the past 15 years." Backing-up Lawson's findings are reported reversals by such global-warming heavy-weights as the United Nation's Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA's James Hansen who both reportedly now recognize that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.

    Europe is facing a green backlash.

    "The BBC has backed down over Sir David Attenborough's widely contested claim that parts of the world have warmed by 3.5C over the last two decades. ...The comment was removed from Sunday night's repeat of the show." -- Harley Dixon, The Daily Telegraph, 11 Feb. 2013

    "...long-term consequences of the Energy Bill will be horrible. It's a recipe for deindustrialization." Professor Gordon Hughes, Mail on Sunday, 24 February, 2013

    "Today energy policy is framed with only one factor in mind: satisfying the green lobby. It is, to be blunt, mad." -- Stephen Pollard, Daily Express, 20 February 2013

    "Carbon emissions are no longer the driving factor setting UK energy policy. The new and dominant issue is cost." -- Nick Butler, Financial Times, 21 February, 2013

    Scientific facts that Mr. Obama and his cronies prefer you not know come from Edmund Contoski, an environmental consultant for more than 40 countries. In Liberty Unbound, Contoski writes: "The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man." Based on scientific data, "Not only are worms contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere," Contoski further notes that, "volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Even natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined." Nature itself foils the environmentalists as The U.S. Department of Energy admits that once emitted that 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are again absorbed by nature. Contosky then queries, "Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans, should we cap-and-tax them?"

    The media neglect the real reason Barack Obama wants your dollars to flow into his green machine that will swallow them up and then divvy them up among an elite group that will reap financial gain as America loses. The scheme is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps a great investigative journalist like Bob Woodward will peel back the layers of this political fraud. After all, he's already endured one tongue-lashing threat from the White House.

  2. From 2007 to 2011, combined total revenues for the five major firms has varied from a low of $1.17 trillion in 2009 to a high of $1.83 trillion in 2011.
    In 2011, the revenues for the five major firms were $486 billion for ExxonMobil, $470 billion for Royal Dutch Shell, $386 billion for BP, $251 billion for ConocoPhillips, and $244 billion for Chevron.
    In 2011, net incomes for the five firms hit a five-year peak of $132 billion. ExxonMobil made $41 billion; Royal Dutch Shell, $28.6 billion; Chevron, $26.9 billion; BP, $25.7 billion; and ConocoPhillips, $12.4 billion.
  3. Table 2: Federal Subsidies Available to U.S. Coal Industry
    Federal Subsidy Ten Year Cost*
    Fossil Energy Loan Guarantee Authority $8,000
    Fossil Energy Research and Development $5,340
    Election to Expense 50 Percent of Qualified Property Used to Refine Liquid Fuels $5,333
    Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for Coal and Other Hard Mineral Fossil Fuels $2,412
    Credit for Investment in Clean Coal Facilities $2,000
    Expansion of Amortization for Certain Pollution Control Facilities $1,680
    IIndustrial CO2 Capture and Sequestration Tax Credit $1,510
    Percentage Depletion Allowance for Coal and Other Hard Mineral Fossil Fuels $1,310
    FutureGen 2.0 $1,300
    Capital Gains Treatment for Royalties on Coal $610
    Credit for Alternative Fuel Mixtures $551
    Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs $279
    Indian Coal Production Credit $200
    Refined Coal Production Credit $200
    Certain Income and Gains Relating to Industrial Source Carbon Dioxide Treated as Qualifying Income for Publicly Traded Partnerships $67
    TOTAL $30,792
  4. pspr


    What are you chirping about? So, now your a tax attorney?

    If you are trying to say the coal industry has all these exemptions, they came to a screeching halt last year because of Obama's EPA.

    Today, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a set of landmark greenhouse gas regulations that will surely have every coal country politician, from the hills to Appalachia to the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, sputtering mad. The rule will require new power plants to emit about 43 percent less carbon dioxide than today's coal-fired generators. Natural gas plants already meet this requirement. But if a utility wants to burn coal for electricity, it will need to install carbon capture technology -- and that's really expensive.

    "This standard effectively bans new coal plants," one petulant lobbyist told The Washington Post.

    But, regardless, that's not the point of the article. Maybe you should try re-reading it a little slower. Try stopping to think after each paragraph. I'm confident that if you take a day or so to read the story you will eventually get the point. :D
  5. "Energy lobby" is the umbrella term used to name the paid representatives of large fossil fuel (oil, gas, coal) and electric utilities corporations who attempt to influence governmental policy. So-called Big Oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total S.A., Koch Industries, Chevron Corporation, and ConocoPhillips are amongst the largest corporations associated with the energy lobby. General Electric, Southern Co., First Energy, and the Edison Electric Institute are among the influential electric utilities corporations.[1] Both electric companies and big oil and gas companies are consistently among the ten highest-spending industrial lobbyists.[2]


    And the reason Republicans, and therefore pspr and jem,"don't believe in AGW" is, drumroll please,

    In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.[3][4] From 2003-2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.[5] During the United States elections in 2012 which includes the presidential election there was much spending by the lobbies.[6]


    and considering the above, it's amazing and encouraging how truthful the info about AGW that comes out of govt funded science is.
  6. pspr


    Maybe if you try going without gasoline, nat. gas and electricity for a few weeks you will understand why it has been promoted over the years. :D
  7. It comes down to a simple choice. How much money do you want to waste not to influence the climate?

    Put another way, would you rather keep your utility bills somewhat affordable or would you rather they be so large that few can pay them, but liberals can feel good about making a purely symbolic gesture?

    If you relectric bill is $300/month in the summer now, it will be $1000 if obama gets his way. And just like that moron Donna Brazile complaining about her health insurance bill, liberals will be hopping mad at the utilities.
  8. Yeah, without it we couldn't afford to drive trucks - I mean SUV's - to the grocery store. And how could we ever get electricity without fossil fuels? It's impossible.

  9. ^Hyperbole.

    It does not have cost much at all and in the long run could save money. There are things that can be done that cost no money at all. Smart policy can do a lot. We have already made good progress in some areas.
  10. pspr


    FC you are just insultingly ignorant. The thrust of the article is about those making a killing on global warming alarmism like Al Gore. Al Gore doesn't have a product that people want and buy. He makes his PERSONAL hundreds of millions by getting government to give his companies nearly all of the money they receive. They have NO product. They receive all their money from you and me through the government and by scamming investors.

    On the other hand, the companies you are talking about receiving subsidies are on actual costs to create products such as gasoline, electricity, fuel oil, etc. in large quantities needed and wanted by the public. They create a product that is in high demand and they have expenses involved with that creation of product.

    Big difference. One group is just a bunch of takers of our money while returning nothing to society while the other group are businesses owned by millions of Americans who make high demand products that each of us use every day.

    You need to open your eyes and STFU.
    #10     Mar 3, 2013