In the late nineties, members of the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were tasked with assessing the scientific validity of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Protocol was an international emissions reduction treaty which required signatories to cut overall greenhouse gas emissions.
The IPCC subsequently produced the Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry.
The report found that "carbon offsets" and "carbon trading" were viable ways to barter the right to pollute, because they would fund new forestry initiatives.
But one critical detail was never disclosed in the report.
That is: members of the IPCC, such as Pedro Moura-Costa (above) and Gareth Philips, had major conflicts-of-interest. They owned, created and/or worked for businesses -- such as Ecosecurities and SGS Forestry -- that would directly profit from the report's conclusions.
In fact, the IPCC panel members' companies were positioned to earn millions of dollars from the report. But the mainstream media did not report these conflicts and instead piled on the "global warming" and "carbon offset" bandwagons.
The carbon offset market quickly exploded. And, just as quickly, it became the subject of rampant allegations of fraud.
In 2009 the market was estimated to be $100 billion; it was so rife with questionable trading that the United Nations suspended the world's largest auditor of 'clean-energy' projects.
Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists believe that carbon offsets are a "scam", "fantasy", "fiction", "nonsense", "fraudulent" and worse. And they've been saying so since 2000, though to read the daily fish-wrap you wouldn't know it.
The World Rainforest Movement, for example, investigated these bizarre financial ties and concluded that the IPCC report must "...be shelved due to their clear conflict of interest and a new report instigated which will be free of the taint of intellectual corruption."
To demonstrate the fraudulence of the carbon offset market, one need only request quotes from various carbon offset sellers. The price for offseting a flight from London to Toronto and back?
- $85: from Climate Care (UK), which says 6 tons of CO2 must be offset.
- $60: Carbon Neutral (UK), which says 4.3 tons of CO2 must be offset.
- $195: Climate Friendly (Australia) asserts that 11.63 tons of CO2 must be offset.
- $180: Green Seat (Netherlands) says 8.68 tons of CO2 must be offset.
Whether you believe the world is warming or cooling, there is no arguing Democrats want more expensive energy for American citizens.
All that said, the real problem — and the reason Pelosi really does deserve blame — is that Democrats’ political goal of reducing carbon emissions continues to trump their populist rhetoric on gasoline prices. The two stances are impossible to reconcile. Try as they might to blame oil companies for the pain Americans feel at the pump, the Democrats want higher prices for gasoline — and for all forms of energy that emit carbon. Economic barriers against CO2 emissions are a requirement for environmental progress in the Democrats’ view, and this is the entire purpose of the carbon cap-and-trade system... to create economic disincentives for emitting CO2.
Because of the falsity of its premise, cap-and-trade is intended to do one thing: allow Democrats to control industrial policy.
It all comes back to carbon offsets, which represent the currency for the "global warming" scam promoted by the UN's IPCC and the Democrat Statists in Washington.
Whether it's through unelected bureaucrats at the EPA, outright cap-and-trade, or John Kerry's 'compromise' climate plan, the economic toll on Americans will be devastating. Even in the latter case, estimated GDP losses of $2.1 trillion and consumer electricity price increases of up to 42% are estimated in less than two decades' time.
Democrats want to control your life. Your health. Your private property. And they really don't care what kind of scam they use to justify it.