Who are the investors tied to UNITED NATIONS carbon trading? The global 1% and global corporations securing real estate globally under the guise of GREEN ENVIRONMENTALISM. This is the UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABILITY -----GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY. The EARTH'S environment is deliberately being brought down while global banking 1% buy and sell real estate at SUPER-DUPER COMPUTER speed.
'You finally prevailed, after years pressing President Obama. Trump has reversed this. What’s your response to South Dakota right now'?
We don't want to discuss FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT environmental activism today---we went into detail about how this XL PIPELINE was a FALSE FLAG. This article tries to perpetuate the idea that CARBON TRADING would work if not for those PESKY FAR-RIGHT WING BUSH'S, TRUMP'S, OR CANADA'S HARPER. Remember, we have had tag team global banking 1%---they all are MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE using these policies to advance real estate deals.
Tom Goldtooth: Carbon Trading is “Fraudulent” Scheme to Privatize Air & Forests to Permit Pollution
November 17, 2017
Keep in mind these articles written these few decades simply reveal what has been a known goal since 1990s.
Yes, Scientific America and Science as journals KNEW THIS.
'But a diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the CDM projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years'.
Carbon-Credits System Tarnished by WikiLeaks Revelation
Emissions trading is the foundation of climate policy, but documents further reveal how problematic it is
Credit: A. Gupta/Reuters/Corbis
As the world gears up for the next round of United Nations climate-change negotiations in Durban, South Africa, in November, evidence has emerged that a cornerstone of the existing global climate agreement, the international greenhouse-gas emissions-trading system, is seriously flawed.
Critics have long questioned the usefulness of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which was established under the Kyoto Protocol. It allows rich countries to offset some of their carbon emissions by investing in climate-friendly projects, such as hydroelectric power and wind farms, in developing countries. Verified projects earn certified emission reductions (CERs) — carbon credits that can be bought and sold, and count towards meeting rich nations' carbon-reduction targets.
But a diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the CDM projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years.
"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce," says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. "In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading," Filzmoser says.
The cable, written on 16 July 2008, was sent by the US consulate in Mumbai, India, to the US secretary of state, and summarizes a discussion of the CDM involving representatives of the consulate and the US Government Accountability Office, along with Indian officials and executives of large Indian companies. At the time, 346 Indian projects had been registered with the CDM's executive board. Today, more than 720 Indian projects have been approved and have gained some 120 million tonnes' worth of carbon credits, a large fraction of the 750 million tonnes issued since 2005 (see 'Cleaning up').
Yet on the evidence of discussions at the meeting, most of the carbon-offset projects in India fail to meet the CDM requirements set by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The cable also describes the UN's validation and registration process as "arbitrary".
Indian authorities were also criticized in the cable. All CDM projects must be validated nationally, then verified independently by an accredited firm. But the cable quotes R. K. Sethi, then chairman of the CDM's executive board and member-secretary of the Indian CDM authority in New Delhi, as admitting that the authority simply "takes the project developer at his word for clearing the additionality barrier".
"This will not invalidate carbon trading, but it does go to show that the CDM has serious flaws," says Mark Maslin, a climatologist at University College London. "In India and China, the multiple levels of governance which you need to have in place to make carbon trading work are simply not there."
Martin Hession, head of global carbon markets at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, and chairman of the CDM executive board, says that the critical remarks in the cable date from a time when "people were complaining a lot" about problems with the CDM. Controversies over whether specific projects reduce net emissions are still common, he says. But since 2008, the board has followed more stringent guidelines for verifying the eligibility of projects and for enhancing the overall efficiency of the scheme.
"The CDM is much more transparent and predictable than the tenor of these remarks might suggest," he says. "We reject many projects in India and China because they fail to meet the required criteria, and we do in fact often get the message that project validation has become too stringent."
Others argue that the rules are still not rigorous enough. In some circumstances, the CDM may actually have encouraged the production in developing countries of the coolant chemical HFC-23, an extremely potent greenhouse gas (M. Wara, Nature 445, 595–596; 2007). Critics have demanded harsher sanctions against validating companies found guilty of lax oversight, together with clearer conflict-of-interest policies and tighter rules on what qualifies as an additional clean-development project.
International Rivers, an environmental campaigning group based in Berkeley, California, is now calling on the CDM executive board to reject the 412-megawatt Rampur hydropower project in Himachal Pradesh, India, which is awaiting CDM approval. The project could earn some 15 million carbon credits from 2012 to 2022, amounting to an estimated US$150-million windfall for the Shimla-based developer Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, the group says. But the decision to finance that project was taken long before the CDM was even created, says Himanshu Thakkar, director of the Delhi-based South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, clearly invalidating its application.
The company stands by its claim that the project qualifies for the CDM, and says that the Indian government approved the investment proposal for the project in 2007, when the CDM was already in place. As Nature went to press, the CDM's executive board, which met in Quito, Ecuador, this week, had not yet decided whether to approve the Rampur project.
Despite the controversy, the European Union seems determined to continue its mandatory emissions-trading system, which it sees as crucial in tackling climate change. There's little doubt about the urgency of that goal: global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 45% since 1990, reaching an all-time high of 33 billion tonnes in 2010, according to a report released last week by the European Commission.
UBS carbon analyst, Per Lekander tells us these CARBON TRADING schemes may have been a NOBLE CAUSE. UBS is of course that global bank found involved at the highest levels in these few decades of global banking fraud.
“Unfortunately, the UN carbon market has become a complete joke,” says UBS carbon analyst, Per Lekander. “I think the scheme would never have survived until now if it hadn’t been for such a noble cause.”
Since these few decades of Clinton-era carbon trading has indeed exhausted this COMPLEX FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT in moving sovereign land to global 1% and global corporations---it is indeed WINDING DOWN. Those 99% investing in this scam will of course lose everything as this system ends.
It is China as one of only a few global nations not playing this real estate scheme which will keep the game going in Asian markets.
Below we see all kinds of ENVIRONMENTAL catch phrases----like SUSTAINABILITY----GREEN TAX CREDITS-----but as this article states----it was all a complete JOKE-----or what it really was a complete FRAUD.
We knew this in 1990s------global media is telling us now.
We knew this in 1990s------global media is telling us now. All of the global banks involved in the massive subprime mortgage loan fraud and today's US Treasury and state municipal bond subprime fraud ----are of course those leading in CARBON TRADING.
UN-led carbon market ‘close to collapse’
FT Pilita Clark, Environment Correspondent October 2, 2012
It was supposed to be a clever way of neutralising greenhouse gas pollution in rich countries and boosting green investment in poorer nations. But sevenyears after the first credit was issued in the world’s only global carbon market – the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism – prices have plunged to record lows and a panel set up by the UN itself to assess the CDM says it has “essentially collapsed”.
“Unfortunately, the UN carbon market has become a complete joke,” says UBS carbon analyst, Per Lekander. “I think the scheme would never have survived until now if it hadn’t been for such a noble cause.” The CDM was established under the 1997 Kyoto treaty so that industrialised countries and companies could offset the impact of their greenhouse gas emissions by funding projects such as a wind farm in India or a solar cooker scheme in China. These projects produce a carbon credit called a certified emission reduction for every tonne of carbon dioxide avoided, and last month, the UN announced that the one-billionth CER had been issued (to a project at an Indian manufacturing plant switching from coal and oil to biomass fuel). More than 4,500 projects in 75 countries have now been launched under the CDM, helping to lower carbon emissions by about 1bn tonnes while spurring $215bn of green spending in poor countries, according to the UN. This might not have happened if CERs had not been allowed into the world’s largest carbon market, the EU’s emissions trading system, which forces companies whose carbon emissions exceed certain levels to buy credits from those with spare permits, or EU allowances.
The EU decided companies could also use CERs and other offsets to meet their emission obligations, subject to restrictions on their use such as volume caps. That has meant prices of the UN-backed credits typically trail those of the EU credits. EUA prices have fallen sharply since mid-2011, when they were about €16.80, down to a record low of €5.99 in April this year, as weak economic conditions reduced industrial demand, making it easier to meet pollution targets.
This has exacerbated a glut in supply still hanging over the market after large numbers of permits were given away free of charge in the early stages of the EU scheme. Despite those falls, the EUA-CER spread mostly stayed within the €1.00 to €4.50 range it has been at since 2009. But it started widening in June this year and then hit a record €5.98 on September 7, mostly because of a tumble in CER prices that were trading at €2.16 on Tuesday. There are two reasons for this, says veteran London-based carbon analyst Trevor Sikorski of Barclays. First, the number of offsets in the EU trading system (most of which are CERs) is getting close to a cap of about 1.4bn tonnes that the EU has imposed on the amount of offsets that can be used up to the end of April 2013.
If that limit is reached, EU rules only permit about 300m tonnes of additional offsets to be used in the emissions trading system up to the end of 2020. Second, from next year the EU will stop accepting CERs derived from the destruction of waste industrial gases, which critics say have been needlessly produced to generate carbon credits. “So all of a sudden you have a very, very heavily supplied market and very little demand,” says Mr Sikorski. He cannot see prices rising substantially any time soon and thinks there is a real chance the CDM “is just going to wither away”.
In depth Climate change The latest news and analysis on the world’s changing climate and the political moves afoot to tackle the problem A third reason CER credit prices have sunk is that it has become apparent over the past six months that Russia and Ukraine will issue some 600m tonnes of a different sort of Kyoto offset credit (Emissions Reduction Units) before April 2013, says Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
That means the EU’s offset cap is almost certain to be reached, he says, making people more desperate to sell CERs. Demand for CERs had been expected to rise strongly by now, driven by a legally binding global climate change agreement supposed to come out of the 2009 Copenhagen UN climate talks, and a national cap and trade scheme in the US. Neither came to pass, and although emissions trading schemes have been announced elsewhere – Australia, California, South Korea – most will limit the use of offsets. EU efforts announced in July to address oversupply in its system may help prop up CER prices, but some say more also needs to be done within the CDM itself. “The problem with the CDM is you don’t have a CDM tsar who runs it,” says Assaad Razzouk, chief executive of Sindicatum Sustainable Resources, an early pioneer of CDM projects that has since moved into other forms of clean energy investments.
“The executive board is swimming in a policy planet where markets don’t seem to feature.” In response to such criticism, the UN last year set up an expert panel to assess the CDM’s future. In a bluntly worded report last month, it concluded the market was “imperilled” and called for measures to save it. These include a fund to buy and cancel the current overhang of CERs, and a new “de facto reserve bank” for the credits that could stabilise the market. Both steps would need approval from the 100-plus nations that gather each year under the UN’s auspices to discuss how to tackle climate change, and as any observer of that process knows, speedy decisions are rare.
The global fossil fuel corporations ARE the FAKE GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATIONS for goodness sake!
So, global oil and gas corporations wanting to morph into energy platforms that will be needed in building PLANETARY MINING COLONIES were allowed to PRETEND they were sacrificing by entering into these CARBON TRADE schemes. All of this was simply capturing the real estate for this expansion and giving global corporations huge subsidy with FAKE GREEN TAX CREDITS.
'How many free allowances would an industry get in 2021?
This would be the sum of production data from 2013-17 multiplied by a benchmark that reflects a 1% improvement from 2008-2023, multiplied by 100% or 30% depending on whether exposure to carbon leakage, multiplied by the cross-sectoral correction factor'.
Who is tops in FAKE GREEN ENERGY-----Elon Musk, that OLD WORLD MERCHANT OF VENICE global 1% tied to global mining corporations partnered with oil and gas drilling.
Elon Musk defends President Trumps' Exxon Mobil Secretary of ...www.cbronline.com/.../elon-musk-trump-exxon-mobil Elon Musk has come out in Favour of President Trump's pick for Secretary of State, former Exxon Mobil boss, Rex Tillerson.
We will watch in MOVING FORWARD where what was sold as ENERGY DIVERSITY ends with all those GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATIONS merging into global fossil fuel.
Elon Musk defends President Trumps’ Exxon Mobil Secretary of State
Increase / Decrease text size
- Joe Clark Reporter 26th January 2017
Throughout the campaign President Trump lambasted the idea of climate change, but now he’s in office, Elon Musk is defending one of his cabinet picks.
Elon Musk has registered his support for President Trumps pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon Mobil.
Yesterday, Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors and proponent of sustainable and smart living, tweeted that he believed the former head of one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world has the potential to be a worthy Secretary of State in President Trump’s new cabinet.
Musk tweeted: “This may sound surprising coming from me, but I agree with The Economist. Rex Tillerson has the potential to be an excellent Sec of State.”
“Rex Tillerson supports a carbon tax. This is what is really needed to move the needle.”
The news seems especially surprising as, the now President, Trump once said: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
In an interview with Gizmodo Musk defended his position and said: “Tillerson obviously did a competent job running Exxon, one of the largest companies in the world. In that role, he was obligated to advance the cause of Exxon and did. In the Sec of State role, he is obligated to advance the cause of the US and I suspect he probably will.”
During Tillerson’s confirmation hearing, the former oil magnate said: “I think it’s important that the United States maintain its seat at the table in the conversation on how to address threats of climate change. They do require a global response.”
Since the 45th President took office all mentions of combating climate change have been removed from the White House website, as well as the EPA, National Park Service and the Forest Service being informed they could no longer divulge climate facts with the public.
Elon Musk defended these clearly contradictory stances and said: “This is something we need to strive for and the more voices of reason that the President hears, the better. Simply attacking him will achieve nothing. Are you aware of a single case where Trump bowed to protests or media attacks?”
Here is a writer for the biggest global corporation tied to OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE ----SIEMENS suggesting that fossil fuel corporations should become renewable energy companies. We read that SAUDI ARABIA has leased its fossil fuel oil business while it divests into FAKE GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATIONS.
ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY GRID is simply that-----it pretends to merge green energy with fossil fuel---when they were never separate. CARBON TRADING simply hid the fact that global oil and gas already receiving huge subsidies in operations and real estate have now used this scheme to appear to diversify -----WE ARE NOT A GLOBAL ENERGY MONOPOLY ----
All this hype about CLIMATE CHANGE deniers was FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% creating policy tensions over what everyone knew was REAL science.
'It remains unfortunate that many fossil fuel companies have not redefined themselves as energy companies that lead the effort to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy'.
Here is the writer of the above article
'Steven A. Cohen (born June 11, 1956) is an American investor, hedge fund manager, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Point72 Asset Management and S.A.C. Capital Advisors both based in Stamford, Connecticut. In July 2013, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged Cohen over insider trading; more specifically, he was not charged with insider trading himself but rather with failing to prevent insider trading at his firm, S.A.C. Capital Advisers'
Fossil Fuel Companies Need to Become Renewable Energy Companies
April 19, 2016 by Steven Cohen
It seems clear that Exxon Mobil and other parts of the fossil fuel industry have tried to suppress the science of climate change. I am not surprised that these companies acted in their short-term self-interest, and I expect them to continue to advance those interests. Their deception is disappointing and may even be illegal, but blaming the fossil fuel companies for our addiction to fossil fuels is foolish. It’s a distraction from the daunting challenge of making the transition to renewable energy as quickly as possible. For some reason, a great deal of effort is being devoted to uncovering the role of Exxon Mobil in the history of climate science. As John Schwartz reported recently in the New York Times:
Pressure on Exxon Mobil and the energy industry increased on Wednesday with the release of a new cache of decades-old industry documents about climate change, even as Exxon pushed back against efforts to investigate the company over its climate claims through the years. The new documents were released by an activist research organization, the Center for International Environmental Law, which published the project on its website.
It remains unfortunate that many fossil fuel companies have not redefined themselves as energy companies that lead the effort to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. If I had money to invest, I’d certainly look for companies that take a longer-term view than some of these companies have taken. But when I plug in my laptop, recharge my iPhone or fill up my car’s gas tank, no one from Exxon Mobil is standing there forcing me to consume energy. I do that of my own free will. These folks are just my suppliers: I am the consumer. We are all consumers, and we are all addicts. Moreover, not all fossil fuel companies are oblivious to the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Italian energy company Eni continues to develop fossil fuels but attempts to reduce environmental impacts; they are trying to reduce their greenhouse gas pollution and recognize the need to address climate change. They are preparing for the transition to renewable energy.
The time and effort devoted to vilifying fossil fuel companies would be more constructively spent trying to figure out how to make our economy more energy efficient and working on the technology and institutional arrangements needed to switch from fossil fuels to alternative forms of energy.
I am a little confused about the absence of vision in some fossil fuel companies. I know they have billions of dollars invested in fuel reserves and in the infrastructure to extract it from the earth and distribute it to consumers. But they must know that they are in a doomed industry. It will take a while before we stop burning fossil fuels, but we will eventually stop using them. Their relative share in the world’s energy mix is declining and will continue to shrink throughout the 21st century.
We want to be clear-----there was nothing HIDDEN. Those who educated and did research knew exactly what was FAKE and what were the goals of these CARBON TRADING policies. No one would think a global banking 1% neo-liberal like Bill Clinton was doing anything for the environment as he was hyper-expanding FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES killing the global environment and causing LEVEL 5 CLIMATE CHANGE.
'Hidden away in the pages of UN-speak that make up the Paris Agreement are the makings of global carbon market in which a host of exotic emissions derivatives can be freely traded, writes Steffen Böhm. And it's all going to be a huge and expensive distraction from the real and urgent task of cutting emissions'.
Here is Steffen Bohm of THE ECOLOGIST telling us what we knew 30 years ago----writing in 2015. So, we know this UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX environmental group is ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT pretending to be activists. Do not look to these groups as leaders as they MORPH to the next fake environmental stance.
ANYONE USING THE TERM SUSTAINABILITY THAT IS NOT EDUCATING ON THE DIFFERENCE OF CORPORATE GLOBAL 1% SUSTAINABILITY VS SUSTAINABILITY FOR 99% OF GLOBAL CITIZENS---IS A 5% PLAYER.
Steffen Böhm is Professor in Management and Sustainability, and Director, Essex Sustainability Institute, University of Essex.
Carbon trading in Paris Agreement has set us up for failure
University of Essex
| 15th December 2015
Forest-based offsets are intended to save carbon-rich forests like these. But sadly, they can equally reward people for destroying them to create palm oil plantations. And in any case, we need to conserve forests and cut industrial emissions, not trade one off against the other! Photo: rainforest in the Darien Gap of Panama by Shannan Mortimer via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA).
Hidden away in the pages of UN-speak that make up the Paris Agreement are the makings of global carbon market in which a host of exotic emissions derivatives can be freely traded, writes Steffen Böhm. And it's all going to be a huge and expensive distraction from the real and urgent task of cutting emissions.
Will these carbon trading and offsetting tools save the planet? The short answer is no. These tools will not save the planet from overheating. In fact, they might be counter-productive to the goal of limiting warming to 2C, never mind the 1.5C ambition.The Paris Agreement has mostly been greeted with enthusiasm, though it contains at least one obvious flaw.
Few seem to have noticed that the main tool mooted for keeping us within the 2C global warming target is a massive expansion of carbon trading, including offsetting, which allows the market exchange of credits between companies and nations to achieve an overall emissions reduction.
That's despite plenty of evidence that markets haven't worked well enough, or quickly enough, to actually keep the planet safe.
The debate over whether to include carbon markets in the final agreement came right to the wire. Some left-leaning Latin American countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia vehemently opposed any mention.
However the EU, Brazil, and New Zealand, among other countries, pushed hard for their inclusion - with support from the World Bank, the IMF and many business groups.
Murky semantics disguise the true intent
What we have ended up with is some murky semantics. Though terms such as 'carbon trading', 'carbon pricing', 'carbon offsetting' and 'carbon markets' don't appear anywhere in the text, the agreement is littered with references to a whole range of new and expanded market-based tools.
Article 6 refers to "voluntary cooperation" between countries in the implementation of their emissions targets "to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions". If that's not exactly plain speak, then wait for how carbon trading is referred to as "internationally transferred mitigation outcomes".
The same Article also provides for an entirely new, UN-controlled international market mechanism. All countries will be able to trade carbon with each other, helping each to achieve their national targets for emissions cuts.
While trading between companies, countries or blocs of countries is done on a voluntary basis, the new mechanism, dubbed the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), will be set up to succeed the existing Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism, providing for a massive expansion of carbon trading and offsetting while setting some basic standards.
Carbon market proponents have already celebrated this as "a new era of international carbon trading", allowing the linking of existing national and regional trading schemes, such as the EU-ETS, as well as the soon to be established Chinese market.
Forest offsets included for the first time
Richer countries can also make deals to reduce deforestation and enhance sustainable forest management to enhance forest carbon sinks in developing nations.
This forest-based offsetting has been debated since 2005 but, due to political controversies and complexities of measuring how much carbon is actually stored in a forest, it has been left out of any international agreements so far. It is now included in Article 5.2 of the Paris text.
But will these carbon trading and offsetting tools save the planet? The short answer is no. These tools will not save the planet from overheating. In fact, they might be counter-productive to the goal of limiting warming to 2C, never mind the unrealistic 1.5C ambition.
Carbon markets basically function as a delaying tactic. It's been that way ever since their first inclusion in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The EU-ETS for instance, the first, biggest and most significant of all trading schemes, simply hasn't delivered.
It took the best part of ten years for it to start after Kyoto, and once in action it was riddled by fraud, corruption, over-allocation of permits and perverse incentives for carbon offsetting - all contributing to the fact that the price for carbon is so low that nobody cares.
Carbon markets and the 'polluter is paid' principle
Offsetting projects in developing countries have been responsible for the expansion of polluting industries and land grabs among other unintentional yet real negative consequences.
We'll see more of this once forest-based offsets are included. Many bilateral forest and UN-REDD projects have been running for years, while critics say they have led to fraud, support of monocultures, forest enclosures, and forced displacements and evictions of indigenous people from their land in countries such as Kenya, Congo, Papua New Guinea or Brazil.
The Paris Agreement is keen to avoid such pitfalls, explicitly stating that it wants "environmental integrity and transparency" with "robust accounting". Such promises have been given numerous times before, yet carbon trading and offsetting keep running into problems.
At the start of the Paris climate talks I warned that they would fail. I'm afraid I was right. While the final agreement contains words of urgency, ambition and action, I have serious doubts that the actual tools that are supposed to deliver the much needed emissions cuts will work fast enough, if at all.
By adopting carbon trading and offsetting as main mitigation tools, the Paris Agreement has created the possibility for years, if not decades, of further delays.
Time we can ill afford.
Finally, on CARBON TRADING public policy ------if anyone didn't know all these green energy schemes were fake and tied to the same global banking frauds and real estate manipulation------then when OBAMA sends a mayor from BALTIMORE----home of CARLYLE GLOBAL INVESTMENT FIRM and global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS which drives all this far-right wing global 1% FAKE environmental policies------
HERE WE SEE GLOBAL BANKING 1% US MAYORS CONFERENCE CHEER-LEADING THIS FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT ENVIRONMENTAL ACCORD----because it is global corporate campus sustainability for only the global 1%. UNPRECEDENTED AGREEMENT.
Another global banking 1% media outlet ------no real news here
About PR Newswire
Beyond PR Blog
Founded: PR Newswire was founded in 1954 by Herbert Muschel.
Integrated into the Cision Comms Cloud™ in 2017
Headquarters: Chicago, Illinois
Global offices: Cision has 35 offices in 18 countries, including 10 in the United States.
Targeting: Every Cision Distribution press release is targeted to specific keywords chosen by our expert editorial staff. Clients are able to further target influencers with specific geographical and industry distribution solutions.
Media reach: Our network reaches nearly 3,000 newsrooms, like The New York Times, ABC News, BuzzFeed and more. We send content to more than 550 news content systems like Moody’s, SmartBriefs, LexisNexis and McGraw-Hill. Furthermore, our media portal PR Newswire for Journalists has more than 39,000 active monthly users.
U.S. Conference Of Mayors President Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake Applauds Unprecedented Agreement At COP 21
Dec 14, 2015, 18:55 ET from The U.S. Conference of Mayors
U.S. Conference of Mayors.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The United States Conference of Mayors President Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake issued the following statement regarding the agreement reached at COP 21 in Paris:
"I applaud our national governments for reaching consensus on climate change at COP 21. Finally, our leaders have come together to acknowledge the threat that climate change presents to our safety and security, regardless of where we live. 195 nations, large and small, rich and poor, have now committed to take substantive action that will lower greenhouse emissions.
"America's mayors have called on the nations of the world to act on climate change for over a decade. Earlier this month, I led a Conference of Mayors mission to COP 21, where we joined with 1,000 mayors to urge international agreement. I am proud of what we accomplished in Paris and am honored to have taken part in this watershed moment for our planet.
"As national governments move toward implementation of this historic accord, America's mayors stand ready to do our part. In 2005, we began committing, city by city, to the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. In Paris, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of that agreement, and over 1,000 U.S. cities have joined our efforts."
Supposedly because US Congress does not pass CARBON TRADING policies we need to bring them to STATE assemblies. What is MOVING FORWARD off east coast states? OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING, FRACKING NATURAL GAS, and refineries tied to transporting both. When we see a photo of polluting energy corporations tied to an article on CARBON TRADING we assume the goals are controlling CO2 emissions and CLIMATE CHANGE.
Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey are MOVING FORWARD offshore oil and gas drilling, refineries so these CAP-AND-TRADE will be more of the same----using global banking frauds to generate millions in profits----generating millions in green tax credits----to fund these mega-carbon-emitting goals.
When we see state elections with global banking neo-liberals sounding good for CARBON TRADING----we need to WAKE UP and get these pols out of office.
ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT ----Bush neo-con same as Clinton neo-liberal--both being ONE WORLD ONE POLITICAL PARTY MOVING FORWARD.
Our US CITIES deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES have global banking 1% pols thinking these cities are free from all national, state, and local sovereign laws----so these STATE CARBON TRADING are tied to state property ----US cities would assume they could do anything they want in real estate distribution and development.
Here we see two of our US 5% to the 1% pols black and white citizens living for today not caring these policies place CLIMATE CHANGE to LEVEL 5.
Remember, the coastal shelves making up our US sovereignty offshore each state are literally being handed to global corporations as real estate-----that is really, really bad for sovereignty but as well environmentally.
Democratic Wins in U.S. State Elections Boost Hopes for Carbon Trading
Nov. 8, 2017, at 2:16 p.m. USA Today
Phil Murphy, Governor-elect of New Jersey, and Shiela Oliver, Lieutenant Governor-elect, wave to supporters at their election night victory rally in Asbury Park, New Jersey, U.S., November 7, 2017. REUTERS/Dominick Reuter Reuters
By Valerie Volcovici
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. voters picked climate change advocates in a handful of gubernatorial and state legislature races on Tuesday, providing a potential boost to state-level efforts to fight global warming through carbon trading schemes.
Democratic-led state and local governments have already promised to act as a counterweight to the administration of President Donald Trump, which is seeking to unwind climate change regulations it deems too costly, and remove the United States from a global pact to reduce emissions.
Democrat Phil Murphy won his race on Tuesday night to succeed New Jersey's outgoing Republican Governor Chris Christie. Murphy ran on a platform that included a pledge to “immediately restore New Jersey’s place in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI),” a northeast carbon market from which Christie withdrew in 2011.
In Virginia, Democrat Ralph Northam defeated Republican Ed Gillespe and pledged to carry out outgoing Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe’s executive directive to reduce carbon emissions and “allow Virginia to become trading-ready."
RGGI Chair Katie Dykes said its officials had been communicating with Virginia as it developed greenhouse gas regulations, and welcomed the "potential dialogue with New Jersey."
In Washington state, a victory by Democrat Manka Dhingra in a state Senate district flipped control of the legislature to Democrats, a boost to Democratic Governor Jay Inslee’s plan to join California, Quebec and Ontario in a carbon trading scheme.
RGGI and the western state carbon market were formed more than a decade ago to help develop market-based approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The addition of Virginia and New Jersey to RGGI would be significant. In 2016, New Jersey emitted 22.1 million short tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) while Virginia emitted 38 million. RGGI’s current nine states emitted 90 million short tons in 2016.
RGGI holds quarterly auctions for carbon permits, which have yielded $2.8 billion in proceeds to date, intended for use to finance clean energy and energy efficiency projects.
Environmental advocates said state-level developments could help counter the Trump administration, as its seeks to revive the U.S. coal industry and roll back environmental protections enacted by Democratic former President Barack Obama.
“We are seeing growing momentum on climate action at the state level,” said Jackson Morris, an official at the Natural Resources Defense Council.