Photo credit: jurvetson

Top scientists and economists tell us that Carbon Trading (Emissions Trading Scheme, ETS) proposals are dangerous, fraudulent Ponzi schemes and that genuine, non-manipulatable, equitable Carbon Taxes are urgently required to help stop planet-threatening carbon burning. [1].

16 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation (including 9.5 million infants) – and this global avoidable mortality holocaust is increasingly climate change-impacted. However, estimates from Dr James Lovelock FRS indicate that about 10 billion people will die this century due to unaddressed global warming – this including 6 billion infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. [2, 3].

Excess deaths (avoidable deaths) associated with the Bush (now Obama) wars and occupations in 1990-2009 (Occupied Haiti, Occupied Somalia, Occupied Palestine, Occupied Syria, Occupied Iraq, Occupied Diego Garcia, Occupied Afghanistan and US robot drone-bombed NW Pakistan) now total 9-11 million. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

It can be estimated from UN Population Division data that there are a total of 655,000 non-violent avoidable deaths from deprivation per year and 1,795 each day in the various Occupied countries of the American Empire. Thus in the first 6 months of Obama’s rule as President of the United States of America there have been 328,000 avoidable deaths from deprivation in the Overseas American Empire – this figure of about 0.3 million avoidable deaths in the Overseas American Empire under Obama does not include violent deaths from military actions of the US or its surrogates (as a notorious US general once declared: “We don’t do body counts’). [5, 7].

UNICEF data informs that 4,000 under-5 year old Occupied Palestinian infants die each year, about 90% avoidably and due to war criminal Occupier non-provision of life-sustaining food and medical requisites unequivocally demanded of Occupiers by the Geneva Convention i.e. US-backed, Obama-backed, racist Zionist (RZ)-run Apartheid Israel deliberately murders 3,600 Occupied Palestinian under-5 year old infants each year. [8].

Of course if Obama were genuine he would insist on Carbon Taxes rather than ETS fraud; he would stop all wars, all occupations and the Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide; and would insist that US-funded Apartheid Israel cease the illegal, war criminal abuse of Occupied Palestinians in what the Catholic Church describes as the Gaza Concentration Camp – but of course pro-Zionist, pro-war, pro-coal, Establishment-beholden Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) simply won’t.

[1]. Gideon Polya, “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group, 2009.
[2]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007.
[3].Gideon Polya, “Climate Disruption, Climate Emergency, Climate Genocide & Penultimate Bengali Holocaust through Sea Level Rise”.
[4]. Gideon Polya, “9-11 excuse for US global genocide. The real 9-11 atrocity – millions dead (9-11 million) in Bush wars (1990-2009)”.
[5]. UN Population Division: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ .
[6]. Gideon Polya, “Pro-Zionist Western genocide denial”.
[7]. Gideon Polya, “Hey, hey, USA, how many kids did you kill today? Answer: 1,000”.
[8]. UNICEF data on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Nevertheless, environmentalists and environmentalist groups are being seduced into supporting the Carbon Trading ETS approach e.g. that of Obama that is now before the US Senate and the disastrous, proposed, pro-coal Australian ETS . The weak argument they offer is that “something is better than nothing”.

The pro-coal, pro-war Rudd Labor Government of Australia was elected in November 2007 with promises to the electorate that it would stop Australia’s involvement in Occupied Iraq (18 months since the election, two thirds of Australian troops are still there and there has a big boost to Australian forces in Occupied Afghanistan) and that it would take strong action on man-made climate change (but its post-election actions have been largely confined to rhetoric and propaganda while Australia’s world-leading per capita Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas pollution continues unabated).

The Rudd Labor Government did sign up Australia to the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 (a decade late) but balanced this by helping the US sabotage the Bali Climate Conference by refusing to agree to definite targets. As a ploy to avoid having to do anything concrete to decrease Australia’s world-leading Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas pollution (54 tonnes per person per year as compared to a world average per capita GHG pollution of 6.7 tonnes per person per year), the Australian Government appointed an economist Professor Ross Garnaut to research climate change for about a year and then proceeded to propose a softened version of Professor Garnaut’s final recommendations.

The Australian Government cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposal was called the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” (CPRS) but the reality as estimated from US Energy Information Administration data is that the Australia ETS will INCREASE Australian Domestic and Exported GHG pollution by about 80% above the 2000 value by 2050 (see “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”) whereas top climate scientists are demanding that atmospheric GHG needs to be urgently REDUCED (see “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”).

Further, top climate scientists and climate economists are increasingly blunt in their assessments that a straightforward Carbon Tax is the way to go and that the cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) approach in general is highly flawed; will reward major polluters; has not and most likely will not deliver timely reduction in GHG pollution; and will lead to a destructive market manipulation “bubble” that will make the recent market meltdown look like a picnic (see “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”).

The cap-and trade ETS of the pro-coal Australian Government is a dishonest scam that ignores top scientific and economic advice in proposing a rigged auction of GHG pollution licences in which only major polluters can participate (an auction that would be illegal in other contexts). Even worse, the receipts from the rigged auction are largely returned to the major polluters who can also keep polluting cheaply by purchasing very cheap carbon pollution offsets offshore from massively deforesting countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

Politically, the Australian ETS has been a great success for spin-driven, pro-coal, pro-war, pro-US Rudd Labor because it has succeeded in fooling the public into believing that it is actually doing something against climate change – whereas the reverse is true i.e. it is doing nothing concrete to reduce GHG pollution and indeed is doing the reverse by permitting massive expansion of coal burning, gas burning and coal and LNG exports while damaging Australia’s remaining renewables industry.

While the Greens oppose the ETS as a scam and the conservative Liberal a party-National Party Coalition oppose the ETS because it is flawed and/or may harm particular business interests, an ignorant and media-brainwashed Australian electorate continues to put its faith in an ignorant, dishonest, and dangerously incompetent pro-coal Australian Labor Government.

A recent estimate was that about 25% of Australians opposed the Carbon Trading ETS, with half opposing because it won’t work and half opposing because they are climate sceptics or are otherwise pro-coal and think it may work.

The great political success of Rudd Labor has been to also split the environmentalist movement. While the over 140 Climate Action Groups who met at the Canberra Climate Action Summit in January 2009 oppose the Government’s ETS and want REDUCTION of atmospheric CO2 from the current 390 ppm to 300 ppm, other environmentalists have been persuaded to come out in support of the highly flawed Government ETS that will commit Australia to INCREASING its world-leading GHG pollution.

The pro-ETS environmental groups include the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Climate Institute have now, sadly, been joined by leading Australian environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery. The essential argument appears to be “something is better than nothing” or as stated by Professor Flannery “I personally think they [the Greens] should vote for the CPRS and get it through. Because a first step is better than nothing.”

Below is a critique of an interview by ABC Lateline presenter Tony Jones with well-known Australian environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery (see ABC TV Lateline 29 June 2009). I have treated this as a kind of “student’s oral examination” and have inserted below correcting comments with appropriate references as required in bold in square brackets. Flannery has failed the Examination in key technical areas (it is no excuse that he was originally a Humanities Bachelor of Arts graduate from Melbourne’s Humanities-eminent La Trobe University before embarking on an eminent scientific career) and has also failed the Environment by supporting the pro-coal Australian Government’s highly flawed, cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme (ETS) that is misleadingly and paradoxically called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

In short, the Australian CPRS (that Professor Flannery now supports) involves rigged auctions of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution licences for major GHG polluters with the receipts being largely returned to the major GHG polluters. It is estimated that this CPRS policy means that Australia, one of the World’s worst per capita GHG polluters, will INCREASE its Domestic and Exported GHG pollution to 80% above the 2000 level by 2050 (see “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”).

Parts of the transcript of the ABC Lateline interview with Professor Flannery are given below  [my comments are in bold in square brackets].

QUOTE: “Tim Flannery, adjunct professor for Environmental and Life Sciences at Macquarie University and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council joins Lateline to discuss the latest summit.

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Joining us now in the studio is Professor Tim Flannery, well-known environmental expert, a former Australian of the Year and also chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council.

Thanks for being here, Tim Flannery.

TIM FLANNERY, CHAIRMAN, COPENHAGEN CLIMATE COUNCIL: It’s a pleasure, Tony.

TONY JONES: Let’s start with the US energy bill, and how much does this new bill Obama has pushed through his Lower House at the very least, how much has it changed the game globally on climate change?

TIM FLANNERY: Well, look, it’s a very significant development. You know, that bill seeks to reduce emissions [annual i.e. per annum?] beyond a 2005 baseline by about 17 per cent [by when?]. And what that means is that for the first time ever, really, US emissions of greenhouse gases will peak about five years from now, and that’s a fantastic achievement if we can do that and then have a slow reduction. Now, of course, we’d all like it to be more ambitious, but you’ve got to live with what’s actually achievable in a place like the US.

… [discussion about the US Obama Administration Waxman-Markey energy, climate change and Carbon Trading ETS bill that is now before the US Senate] …

TONY JONES: Well, no response yet from China or India on this [proposed US carbon-related tariffs] and I suspect partly because it seems to have slipped under the bar. It’s now only being reported in fact in the ‘New York Times’ and the ‘Washington Post’. So, it happened in the middle of the night. A lot of people didn’t notice for the whole weekend and now they …

TIM FLANNERY: Including me.

TONY JONES: Well, now they’ve noticed. And so what response do you expect there will be from China and India? Because it does look like a threat: get on board or we’ll put tariffs on your goods.

TIM FLANNERY: It does. I think it’s gonna be much, much tougher for India than China, this sorta stuff. And – which is a pity, because with the Congress win in the last election in India there’s been a softening of the Indian position, and with the right signals, I think India may come on board. This may make it more difficult for India to deal with … [In actuality, India’s annual per capita GHG pollution of 2.2 tonnes CO2-e per person per year is about one third of the world average and 25 times lower than Australia’s annual per capita Domestic and Exported GHG pollution of 54; Indian PM Manmohan Singh has actually PLEDGED that India’s annual per capita will never exceed the average for Developed countries, this already being much lower than the World average and vastly lower than that of the US, Europe and Australia: http://smh.com.au/environment/.../us-says-scientist-20090709-desd.html ].

China’s different. China’s been playing tough all along. They’ve been saying, you know, “Unless you guys reduce by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020, we’re not gonna be part of the deal.” Now that’s probably a negotiating position; we’re yet to see. But this again will make it somewhat harder, but I don’t think it makes it impossible for China.

[Flannery ignores the reality that Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and a world leading greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter. Thus Australia’s domestic and exported “annual per capita GHG pollution” is 54 tonnes CO₂-equivalent per person per year –  2 times that of the US, 10 times that of China, 25 times that of India and 60 times that of Bangladesh; for details and documentation see “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”].

TIM FLANNERY: Well, look, offsets will be allowed – industrial offsets, right? So, if you produce a given amount of pollution, you can offset some of it by sequestering carbon in soils on farmland, which can be done through better agricultural practices and so forth, through charcoal making, another interesting technology, through reforestation, better rangelands management, better management of cattle and so forth. So there’s a number of different ways of this occurring. It’s yet to be seen specifically how the offsets will be made, but it definitely represents a real advantage to rural America and a very genuine set of offsets too. This actually helps with the climate problem. We know that this is such an overwhelmingly large problem that about half of the avoided emissions that we’ve gotta make over the next decade will come from sequestration in agriculture and forests.

TONY JONES: It is extraordinary when you think about that level of potential sequestration, but how does it actually work? I mean, biochar, for example, will – which Malcolm Turnbull has talked about quite a bit; you haven’t heard much from the Government on this issue. Will biochar be available to US farmers to offset carbon emissions?

TIM FLANNERY: Look, the specific technologies, I think, are yet to be debated, but I would be surprised if biochar weren’t included in there. I mean, the precise nature of the offsets, I should say, are still being worked out, but I’m sure that charcoal is one of the obvious ones. And just to let you know how that works, you know, just imagine a coal-fired power plant burns a ton of coal, you get 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide because the little carbon atoms join with bigger oxygen atoms to make them a CO2 molecule [you actually get much LESS because not all coal is carbon and not all the carbon, C, gets burned or fully oxidized to CO2]. That floats around in the air, a plant gets hold of it, strips the oxygen off again [NO, just some of the oxygen O is stripped off] and just keeps the carbon in its own tissue, so you’ve got that 3.7 going back to a single ton again ’cause there’s carbon in the plant structure itself [NOT SO; the photosynthesis equation is actually : CO2 + H2O -> CH2O + O2 i.e. carbohydrate (CH2O)n is generated, not carbon, C]. You then combust that, make charcoal out of it and then store the charcoal, which is almost pure carbon, in the soil.

TONY JONES: So, how does this work for a farmer? I mean, you’re talking about part of their crop is used obviously for export; the rest of it, the waste then becomes turned into charcoal and therefore somehow holds the carbon that’s in that waste. Is that what you’re talking about?

TIM FLANNERY: That’s absolutely right. If you look at a tree, it’s basically just congealed carbon [NO,  it is actually carbohydrate, mainly cellulose, (CH2O)n], you know, that’s what it is, effectively. And there’s people overseas developing some very ingenious ways of permanently capturing that carbon as charcoal. One of the best plans I’ve seen is out of Sweden where an agronomist is developing a thing called a “charvestor”. And a charvestor would simply go along and harvest a crop, but also harvest a crop waste. It’ll put the crop waste into a charcoal making machine and it’ll bin the synthetic gas you get out of that machine, which is a valuable protect, and the crude oil substitute’ll go into another bin, and the charcoal’ll get spat out the back and be put back into the field and give you a better crop yield next year.

TONY JONES: But how do you do it? I mean, it seems to require some kind of furnace that burns without oxygen or without using very much oxygen. How does that work?

TIM FLANNERY: Well, charcoal making’s a really ancient technology. And all you do is basically heat up any biomass – wood or crop mass or whatever – in the absence of oxygen and that basically cooks it. And so you get a gas given off which you can capture, you get a gooey, oil-like substance given off, and that’s a crude oil substitute, and at the bottom of the machine is all of the charcoal which is the carbon-dense part, it’s almost all the carbon in the plant, which is then in a mineralised form so it won’t rot away [NO, it is simply in the form of carbon, C, which will not “rot away and escape back into the air” unless it catches fire and burns: C + O2 -> CO2], and that’s the key to it. Because crop waste, normally, if it’s just put back on a field, tends to rot away and escape back to the air as carbon dioxide [NO, much ends up as methane, CH4, depending upon the conditions and organisms involved, noting that CH4 has 21 times the greenhouse gas efficacy of CO2 on a 100 year time scale], whereas if it’s turned into charcoal it’ll stay in that field for many thousands of years. So it’s locked away permanently out of the system.

….

TONY JONES: You’ve been watching very closely the progress towards the negotiations, or the progress of the negotiations towards December where there’s hope for an agreement. Is there any chance at all that what many scientists want will happen, that is, an agreement to keep temperature rises globally to under two degrees Celsius?

TIM FLANNERY: Tony, we’ve gotta see this as a step in a process, right? And we’re starting very late. There is enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to push us perilously close to that two degrees of warming over time, right? We can’t see how this is gonna play out in the longer term because things like charcoal making may pull us back from the brink a bit faster than we previously thought. But I see this Copenhagen meeting as a very important step in the process. It may not of itself limit us – limit greenhouse gas emissions to the point where we’ll be under two degrees, but it is a very important step [not good enough; Europe has set a limit of 2 degrees C warming over 1900 temperature; 90% of respondents from participants at the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference thought that we would exceed 2 degrees C: http://guardian.co.uk/environment/.../global-warming-target-2c ]. We’ve gotta get emissions to peak first before we can start that reduction [what reduction? We can start reducing net CO2 and net GHG pollution right now].

….
TONY JONES: It’s not only industry, it’s certain key politicians. Senator Steve Fielding had a very important potential vote in the Senate, is now being described by the ‘Wall Street Journal’ as something like a prophet, which is quite unusual to see, and beyond that, there’s a view that Australia is emerging as a sort of epicentre of the new scientific scepticism.

TIM FLANNERY: Australia’s climate dinosaurs are a lot bigger and uglier than the climate dinosaurs elsewhere, that’s for sure. And it is depressing, because it’s just so counter-productive. And, you know, the amount of time industry will waste disputing the science and not getting on with the job of adjusting to the future and a new energy economy in this country is just dismaying.

TONY JONES: What about the other side of the coin – the Greens in Australia? You referred earlier to the pragmatism of the American vote. The Greens, of course, have chosen not to be pragmatic at all, to vote against the carbon pollution reduction scheme [CPRS; Australia’s proposed cap-and-trade emission trading scheme (ETS)], and potentially vote it down, although there are other votes obviously. Do you admire their role, or should they have been, as the American Congressmen were, more pragmatic?

TIM FLANNERY: I think The Greens have been fairly pragmatic throughout the year. I personally think they should vote for the CPRS and get it through. Because a first step is better than nothing. We need to start this journey, you know? And, yes, it’s not entirely adequate for the task, it won’t limit emissions as much as we want, but we’ve gotta start somewhere. Unless we take the first step, we’re not going anywhere [NO; leading scientists and economists argue strongly for a Carbon Tax rather than market-manipulatable Carbon Trading and are saying that cap-and-trade emissions trading schemes (ETSs) are flawed, risky and unlikely to deliver the requisite decrease in GHG pollution; see “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission trading Scheme (ETS)”] .

….” END QUOTE.

Overall  a very  poor performance by Professor Tim Flannery who has clearly FAILED the “examination” as well as the environment.

Contrast Professor Flannery’s weak pro-ETS  argument that “a first step is better than nothing” with the conclusions of the following top climate scientists and climate economists about Emission Trading Schemes (for references and expanded quotes see “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”).

Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Columbia University; Head, NASA GISS): “The worst thing about cap-and-trade [ETS], from a climate standpoint, is that it will surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of emissions that is needed. Thus cap-and-trade would practically guarantee disastrous climate change for our children and grandchildren”.

Professor William Nordhaus (Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University, USA): “To bet the world’s climate system and global environment on an untested [ETS] approach with such clear structural flaws would appear a reckless gamble …The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure with one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions”.

Professor Jacqueline McGlade (Director of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, marine biologist and Professor of Environmental Informatics in the Department of Mathematics at University College London, UK): “His [Nordhaus’] idea is very sensible. We need to move the burden of taxation away from labour to resources — and tax not just on carbon but other resources such as water to tackle the far wider environmental and resource problems we face

Professor Daniel M. Kammen (Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley):  “a price on greenhouse gas emissions is essential”.

Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia): “A cap and trade mechanism is by its nature, an all consuming policy instrument that extinguishes the effectiveness of voluntary actions, harming rather than enhancing the evolution of a low carbon economy …  the cap and trade mechanism is the wrong approach and we should instead focus on a carbon tax”.

Dr Robert J. Shapiro (Chair, U.S. Climate Task Force and finance consultancy firm Sonecon; undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration): ”Despite its advocates’ good intentions, cap-and-trade could put America at risk of another meltdown — one originally created and financed by the government itself. None of these painful and difficult issues arise with a carbon tax-shift. Rather, it could enable us to effectively do our part in addressing climate change, while protecting or even enhancing our economic prospects. That’s a deal Congress cannot afford to pass up”.

Stephen Lendman (leading liberal US analyst and commentator): “Contributing $4,452,585 to Democrats in 2008 (around $1 million to Obama) was mere pocket change for what it can reap from scams like cap and trade disguised as an environmental plan. The scheme [the Obama ETS and energy bill] was devised. GS [Goldman Sachs] helped write it. The House passed it and sent it to the Senate. Unless stopped, it will transfer more of our wealth to corporate polluters and Wall Street on top of all they’ve stolen so far from derivatives fraud and the imploded housing and other bubbles”.

Kenneth Davidson (respected economics columnist for “The Age” newspaper, Melbourne; co-editor of “Dissent”):”There isn’t one cap-and-trade scheme in the world that has resulted in a reduction in carbon emissions. Instead, such schemes have made money for the biggest polluters and created a new branch of the derivatives industry that creates new wealth opportunities for brokers and financiers. Rudd’s cap and trade scheme benefits the worst polluters. But the Australian scheme is special. It has been rorted at the planning stage … The carbon scheme is not simply weak. It is fraudulent”.

Professor Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University; 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate; former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank), December 2007: “The only principle that has some ethical basis is equal emission rights per capita (with some adjustments – for instance, the US has already used up its share of the global atmosphere, so it should have fewer emission allowances). But adopting this principle would entail such huge payments from developed countries to developing countries, that, regrettably, the former are unlikely to accept it … Of course, polluting industries like the cap-and-trade system. While it provides them an incentive not to pollute, emission allowances offset much of what they would have to pay under a [Carbon] tax system”.

Photo credit: Mark Coulson, 5th World Conference of Science Journalists

“The cuts it proposes are much lower than those being pursued in the UK or in most other developed nations. Like the UK’s climate change act (pdf) the US bill calls for an 80% cut by 2050, but in this case the baseline is 2005, not 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose from 5.8 to 7bn tonnes.

The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill’s measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it’s printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.”

Monbiot says that lobbyists from the dirty industries, thinktanks, pr consultants and politicians like Republican Joe Barton are to be blamed for the weak climate and energy bill. He even goes as far as saying that the corruption of public life in the USA is Obama’s “real challenge”:

“A combination of corporate money and an unregulated corporate media keeps America in the dark ages. This bill is the best we’re going to get for now because the corruption of public life in the United States has not been addressed. Whether he is seeking environmental reforms, health reforms or any other improvement in the life of the American people, this is Obama’s real challenge.”

But Monbiot still want the bill to be passed “as it at least provides a framework for future improvements”.

Also read: Top experts: Carbon Tax needed NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

They variously argue AGAINST carbon pricing based on a Kyoto Protocol-based Cap-and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) of which the pro-coal Australian Government’s carbon pollution-increasing and misleadingly named Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is a spectacularly flawed, irresponsible, anti-social, anti-humanity, anti-environment, anti-Planet and disastrous example.

Thus the pro-coal Australian ETS involves a rigged auction involving only major polluters and then extraordinarily hands most of the receipts back to the major polluters. The proposed Australian ETS is estimated to mean an increase in Australian domestic and exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 80% on 2000 levels by 2050 (see my letter in the leading Australian newspaper The Age, 14 June, 2009).

Well, we hear plenty from ignorant and dishonest politicians about their pet Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). Indeed such a scheme is a key part of the Obama Administration Waxman-Markey energy, climate and cap-and-trade Bill that has just passed the US House of Representatives and now faces the US Senate.

But what do top climate scientists and climate economists say? Below are some key comments made by experts who press for a direct, global Carbon Tax rather than failed, worse than ineffective, dishonest, risky and market manipulatable Carbon Trading (for detailed, extensive and updated documentation of such views see the website of the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group).

Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; adjunct professor, Columbia; University, New York, USA), February 2009:

“The most honest effective way to achieve a carbon price capable of driving our economy and our society to the clean world of the future is “Carbon Tax with 100% Dividend” … The worst thing about cap-and-trade [ETS], from a climate standpoint, is that it will surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of emissions that is needed. Thus cap-and-trade would practically guarantee disastrous climate change for our children and grandchildren.” [1].

Jonathan Leake (science and environment editor of the UK Sunday Times), March 2009:

“Britain’s faith in carbon trading as a way of reducing greenhouse gases could be dangerously misplaced, according to an independent academic working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Dr Chris Hope of the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School … [has] a far wider conclusion: the current European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is deeply flawed and should be replaced – or at least augmented – with a green tax … For the ETS to work, the price has to be set at a level that makes it worthwhile for consumers to cut their energy use. According to Hope’s research, the minimum price needed is about £85 per tonne [A$173] , rising at roughly 2 to 3 per cent a year … Prices now stand at roughly £9.50 [A$19] per tonne of CO2 – less than 12 per cent of what Hope’s calculations show is needed.… He believes a market-based trading system such as the ETS is very unlikely to generate consistent high prices, and this instability could undermine the whole point of the scheme”. [2].

Professor William Nordhaus (Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University, USA), March 2009:

“The international community is making huge wager on the Kyoto model. The wager is that the cap-and-trade structure contained in the model will do the job of slowing global warming. The new United States Administration advocated that the U.S. adopt this system as its contribution top solving the global problem, and the primary legislation in the U.S. Congress is firmly a cap-and-trade proposal. But, as I have suggested above, the cap-and-trade approach is a poor choice of mechanism… You need only to look today at the wreckage of the current financial system to see the latest example of the effects of failed regulatory and risk-management design. So, if the Kyoto model turns out to be another failed model, it has lots of company. But it would be better to recognize and change it now, rather than in one or two more decades of ineffective and inefficient efforts to slow emissions. The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure with one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions.” [3].

Professor Jacqueline McGlade (Director of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, marine biologist and Professor of Environmental Informatics in the Department of Mathematics at University College London, UK), March 2009:

“His [Nordhaus’] idea is very sensible. We need to move the burden of taxation away from labour to resources — and tax not just on carbon but other resources such as water to tackle the far wider environmental and resource problems we face.” [4].

Professor Daniel M. Kammen, (Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley), March 2009:

“Evolving the filed of climate solutions science: the economics of clean and sustainable energy must be supported for individuals and companies to achieve a shared vision; a price on greenhouse gas emissions is essential (but alone it is not sufficient); innovative financing is needed to advantage clean energy; innovation and implementation is needed in the North and South; scientific, and policy innovations open the door for quantified cases of clean development that, in turn, can reset the political landscape in favour of a low carbon future.” [5].

Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia), 2009:

“1. A cap and trade mechanism is by its nature, an all consuming policy instrument that extinguishes the effectiveness of voluntary actions, harming rather than enhancing the evolution of a low carbon economy. 2. With a cap and trade approach, the target is everything as both the emissions cap and emissions floor are locked in. No one can do better than the cap, and so the cap must be a science based all consuming sustainable target pathway that won’t lock in failure. As we don’t yet have the widespread political and economic preparedness to commit to an all consuming sustainable target pathway (either nationally or internationally), the cap and trade mechanism is the wrong approach and we should instead focus on a carbon tax with complementary mechanisms that would transform the economy more effectively than the [Australian] proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).” [6].

Larry Lohmann (climate economist, The Corner House, London, UK); summary of book “Carbon Trading”, by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006 [implicit in the GHG pollution cessation argument is taxing GHG pollution out of existence]:

“The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions — primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems — and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading — the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon trading has two parts. First, governments hand out free tradable rights to emit carbon dioxide to big industrial polluters, allowing them to make money from business as usual. Second, companies buy additional pollution credits from projects in the South that claim to emit less greenhouse gas than they would have without the investment. Most of the carbon credits being sold to industrialized countries come from polluting projects, such as schemes that burn methane from coal mines or waste dumps, which do little to wean the world off fossil fuels.” [7].

Dr Robert J. Shapiro (Chair, U.S. Climate Task Force and finance consultancy firm Sonecon; undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration), January 2009:

“A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new, trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme, based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies, themselves exempt from caps, can sell to other ETS members…the volatile prices for the permits themselves, traded on financial markets, would attract speculation and new financial derivatives, putting us at risk for another crisis. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants, including governments, to evade or manipulate the system. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics, Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon, creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes.” [8].

More from Dr Robert J. Shapiro, March 2009:

“The proper approach here is a straightforward one. First, enact a carbon-based tax to move people and firms to prefer and choose less-carbon-intensive fuels and technologies. Second, as we change the relative prices of different forms of energy based on their effects on the climate, protect people’s incomes and the overall economy by returning all or virtually all of the revenues through payroll tax cuts or lump-sum payments to households. Third, use the certainty of a substantial tax on carbon, along with additional subsidies, to promote the development of new climate-friendly fuels and technologies that can capture a new and fast-growing global market. I recently co-authored a study that used the same modeling system as the Department of Energy to estimate the environmental and economic consequences of applying this specific approach. We found that we can effectively address climate change without harming our economy … And after the carnage of Wall Street’s recent rounds of malfeasance, it is painfully clear that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department simply lack the ability (and the resources) to effectively police complex, fast-moving markets involving many, many thousands or millions of trades per day. Despite its advocates’ good intentions, cap-and-trade could put America at risk of another meltdown — one originally created and financed by the government itself. None of these painful and difficult issues arise with a carbon tax-shift. Rather, it could enable us to effectively do our part in addressing climate change, while protecting or even enhancing our economic prospects. That’s a deal Congress cannot afford to pass up.” [9].

Pro-coal US and pro-coal Australia are world leading greenhouse has (GHG) polluters. Pro-coal, climate criminal Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and a world leading greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter. Thus Australia’s domestic and exported “annual per capita GHG pollution” is 54 tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year – 2 times that of the US, 10 times that of China, 25 times that of India and 60 times that of Bangladesh.

If the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference opts, like the climate criminal nations of the US and Australia, for a Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), then the World is facing disastrous inaction over man-made global warming and the real prospect of worsening, First World-imposed climate genocide. Top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS has estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive global warming this century, this constituting a prospective climate genocide that will kill 10 billion non-Europeans including 6 billion infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (for detailed documentation see here).

Key References

[1]. Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009: http://cleanenergy-project.de/…/carbon-tax-100-dividend-vs-tax-trade/ ; http://www.columbia.edu/…/WaysAndMeans.pdf.

[2]. Tricia Holly Davis & Jonathan Leake, New Statesman, 26 March 2009: http://newstatesman.com/…/carbon-price-climate-hope-co2.

[3]. Professor William Nordhaus, “Economic issues in designing a global agreement on global warming”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/speaker-11march2009.pdf/ ; for this and other plenary lectures see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/congresspresentations/.

[4]. Oliver Tickel, “Replace Kyoto Protocol with global carbon tax, says Yale economist”, Guardian, 12 March 2009.

[5]. Professor Daniel M. Kammen, “From climate science to solutions: shared agendas in the North and South”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/speaker-11march2009.pdf/ ; for this and other plenary lectures see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/congresspresentations/.

[6]. Professor Barry Brook, “CPRS versus carbon tax: Senate Inquiry”, 30 March 2009.

[7]. Larry Lohmann, summary of book “Carbon Trading. A critical conversation on climate change, privatisation and power” by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006, published by Dag Hammarskold Foundation, Durban Group for Climate Justice and The Corner House, 2006.

[8]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “The real choice between Cap-and Trade and Carbon-based taxes”, Roll Call, 15 January 2009.

[9]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “Shapiro: economy will force quick action on climate change“, Roll Call, 30 March 2009.

Photo credit: jurvetson

This past Friday the House of Representatives in USA voted yes to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a cap-and-trade energy bill, by a vote of 219 to 212. This historic climate change bill will require limits on pollution responsible for man-made climate change and it will help USA create a green economy, if it also gets thumbs up in the Senate.

“After a tense debate, in which the margin of success or failure never moved beyond a handful of votes, the House of Representatives passed the most sweeping climate change policy ever considered by Congress early Friday evening, the Huffington Post reports.

The outcome had remained up in the air up until the actual vote, with the White House and the president himself engaging in a heavy lobbying campaign aimed at restoring Democratic Party unity that seemed to be fracturing.”

President Barack Obama said in his weekly address that this new bill will help “create green jobs, ensure clean air for our children, move towards energy independence and combat climate change.”

Steve Bouchard, Campaign Manager for Repower America, said in a statement after the vote that the House of Representatives had just passed a “landmark bill that will propel our nation toward a clean energy future.” But Bouchard also warned that the fight wasn’t over yet:

“It’s not over though. The debate moves on to the Senate where our opponents will redouble their efforts. There will be more distortions and foot dragging, but the momentum is on our side.

Today, we have something to celebrate. For the first time in decades, we have taken bold action to help solve the climate crisis.”

But not everyone is happy about the bill. Republicans have complained that the energy bill is just a new “energy tax” and falsely claims it will cost households in USA $3,100 every year. The Daily Green reports:

“This debate has sprung largely from a Republican misreading (why not be generous?) of an MIT study that led pundits and politicians to cry about the perils of a new “energy tax” that might cost American households $3,100 every year. (Though that claim has been thoroughly debunked, I seem to hear it every other Saturday in the Republican response to President Obama’s weekly address.) The author of the MIT study puts the cost at $800, while the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated the annual cost at $1,500 and the Environmental Protection Agency estimated the cost at just $140 or lower.”

Thomas Friedman, author of the book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded – Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How it Can Renew America”, writes on the New York Times that he thinks the energy bill is a “mess” and that it “stinks”. Friedman blames the Republicans, President Barack Obama and “We the People” for being responsible for such a weak bill. But he still calls for the Senate to pass the bill:

“Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as Americavoting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

More important, my gut tells me that if the U.S. government puts a price on carbon, even a weak one, it will usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference — much like the first warnings that cigarettes could cause cancer. The morning after that warning no one ever looked at smoking the same again.”

In advance of the vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett said that the bill “chooses politics over science” and that it “elevates industry interests over national interest.” She even called for the Congress to reject the bill and instead begin “immediate and urgent work on legislation that treats seriously the dire threat of climate change”.

“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.

[…]This legislation sends a strong and unmistakable signal to the world that the United States is not yet ready to show the leadership necessary to reach a strong agreement at Copenhagen in December. Already, we are seeing the impact of this signal as one country after another retreats from the aggressive targets needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.”

In a response to the thumbs up for the energy bill in the House of Representatives Muffett called the bill “a victory” for coal, oil and other dirty industry lobbyists. She also said that “it is a tremendous loss for the American people and for the world in our common fight to avert climate catastrophe.”

“To avoid the worst effects of global warming, we must reduce emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and the short term target of this bill is a paltry 4%. The massive offsets in this bill means that we can continue at our current emissions level for years, and huge giveaways mean a new generation of nuclear and coal plants.

Unless the bill is substantially strengthened in the Senate, we have a lot more work ahead of us. We are calling upon President Obama to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to get us back to the science-based targets he promised.”

The energy and climate bill has a long way to go before becoming law as it has to pass voting in the Senate were more right-wingers, lobbyists paid by the coal and oil industry and even some environmentalists will try to fight the bill.

Unfortunately Obama yesterday turned down invitations to go to the UN climate conference in Poland this December. And he has not yet promised that as President he will sign the Kyoto protocol.

Below you can watch Obama’s speech during the climate summit, and read the transcript of the video:

The transcript of the video:

Let me begin by thanking the bipartisan group of U.S. governors who convened this meeting. Few challenges facing America — and the world — are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security. I know many of you are working to confront this challenge. In particular, I want to commend Governor Sebelius, Governor Doyle, Governor Crist, Governor Blagojevich and your host, Governor Schwarzenegger — all of you have shown true leadership in the fight to combat global warming. And we’ve also seen a number of businesses doing their part by investing in clean energy technologies.

But too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office. My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.

That will start with a federal cap and trade system. We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050. Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private-sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power and next-generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.

This investment will not only help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making the United States more secure. And it will not only help us bring about a clean energy future, saving our planet. It will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.

But the truth is, the United States cannot meet this challenge alone. Solving this problem will require all of us working together. I understand that your meeting is being attended by government officials from over a dozen countries, including the U.K., Canada and Mexico, Brazil and Chile, Poland and Australia, India and Indonesia. And I look forward to working with all nations to meet this challenge in the coming years.

Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather at Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet. While I won’t be president at the time of your meeting and while the United States has only one president at a time, I’ve asked members of Congress who are attending the conference as observers to report back to me on what they learn there.

And once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.

Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious.

Stopping climate change won’t be easy. It won’t happen overnight. But I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America. Thank you.

During a climate summit in California today Barack Obama said, in a taped video, that his “presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change”.

Obama spoke about his support for a cap-and-trade system and that he would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and with 80% by 2050. Obama also said he wanted to give the private sector $15 billion each year to support their investments efforts in clean energy.

“I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”

Obama also said that he would not attend the United Nations climate change conference in Poland this December. But he promised that once he becomes President USA “will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations”.

“Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

The “Governors Global Climate Summit”, opened by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, will have more than 800 scientists, environmentalists, government and industry officials from 19 different countries attending. The attendees will discuss strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions and how countries can protect both the environment and the economy.

“When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island, so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could,” Governor Schwarzenegger said. “We teamed up with Great Britain, the Canadian provinces, the Western and Northeastern states and with states like those of my co hosts-Illinois, Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin and more. And right here, for the first time, we have officials from China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and across the world in the same summit, working toward the same goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and growing green economies in our own backyards.”

“Florida’s rapid progress has been possible only through partnership agreements with the United Kingdom and Germany, and with the help of my good friend, Governor Schwarzenegger,” Florida Governor Charlie Crist said. “Progress comes only as we work together-not at the expense of future economic growth-but as a necessity for the future prosperity of all nations and states.”

“This Summit is an opportunity to strengthen important relationships with business and government officials nationally and internationally and develop climate change strategies that will save us money, create jobs, help secure our world and improve our air and water,” Wisconsin Governor Doyle said.

“There is an incredible opportunity here to get our nation’s economy back on track by creating green jobs and becoming a world leader in the development of clean energy technologies,” Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius said. “In Kansas, our farms and fields can produce tomorrow’s energy through biofuels and clean, renewable wind. Rural America is going to play an important part in securing energy independence for our nation.”

John McCain’s energy plan in comparison is, let’s say, a bit weaker. He is all about nuclear energy, a $300 million battery prize, nothing on energy efficiency and an opposition to clean renewable energy.

Here are some of the energy plans Barack Obama has for America:

Increase Fuel Economy Standards
Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per each year. The plan is expected to save nearly a half trillion gallons of gasoline and keep 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases away from our atmosphere.

Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road
Obama wants to invest in “advanced vehicle technology with a specific focus on R&D in advanced battery technology” so that 1 million plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, “which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas,” could get on the roads by 2015.

To help American consumers switch over to the more eco-friendly cars Obama will “provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits.”

Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles
“Obama will work with Congress and auto companies to ensure that all new vehicles have FFV capability – the capability by the end of his first term in office”. With alternative fuel Obama means “sustainably produced biofuels.”

Develop the Next Generation of Sustainable Biofuels and Infrastructure
Besides making all new vehicles have FFV capability Obama will require at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels “are developed and incorporated into our national supply” by 2030.

A sustainability provision will ensure that increased biofuels production does not come at the expense of environmental conservation. This sustainability provision will come from Obama’s plans to Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. “The standard requires fuels suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years”.

Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source — Energy Efficiency
Obama wants to reduce electricity demand by 15 percent by using the energy generated more efficiently. It is expected that this “will save consumers a total of $130 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030, and create jobs”.

Related to this Obama will Set National Building Efficiency Goals. The goal is to make all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. “He’ll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal”.

“The current Department of Energy has missed 34 deadlines for setting updated appliance efficiency standards, which has cost American consumers millions of dollars in unrealized energy savings.” That is why Obama will, if elected, Overhaul Federal Efficiency Standards.

Invest in a Smart Grid
This is, just like it says, smart. “Obama will pursue a major investment in our national utility grid using smart metering, distributed storage and other advanced technologies to accommodate 21st century energy requirements: greatly improved electric grid reliability and security, a tremendous increase in renewable generation and greater customer choice and energy affordability”.

Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012
Obama will “require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012,” and 25% by 2025.

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology
Unfortunately Obama hasn’t ditched the “clean coal” lie yet.

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy
Obama wants “key issues” like security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation to be addressed before “an expansion of nuclear power is considered.” If elected “Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis”.

And last but not least Obama will Implement Cap and Trade Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. “Barack Obama supports implementation of an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This market mechanism has worked before and will give all American consumers and businesses the incentives to use their ingenuity to develop economically effective solutions to climate change. Obama’s cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all industries pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these valuable emission rights away to companies on the basis of their past pollution. A small portion of the receipts generated by auctioning allowances ($15 billion per year) will be used to support the development of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements, and help develop the next generation of biofuels and clean energy vehicles – measures that will help the economy and help meet the emissions reduction targets”.

These are just some of the plans from Barack Obama’s energy plan for America. You can read the full plan here (PDF).