FOX: Collapse of Chicago Climate Exchange Means a Strategy Shift on Global Warming Curbs - Polidicks

FOX News [release]The closing this week of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which was envisioned to be the key player in the trillion-dollar "cap and trade" market, was the final nail in the coffin of the Obama administration's effort to pass the controversial program meant to combat global warming. "It is dead for the foreseeable future," said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and the Environment with the Competitive Energy Institute, which had fought the measure. That assessment was echoed by environmentalists as well. "Economy-wide cap and trade died of what amounts to natural causes in Washington," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, which had supported the plan. The CCX was set up in 2000 in anticipation of the United States joining Europe and other countries around the world to create a market that would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Under the system, factories, utilities and other businesses would be given an emissions target. Those that emitted less fewer regulated gases than their target could sell the "excess" to someone who was above target. Each year, the target figures would be reset lower. The Exchange was the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economist and professor at Northwestern University, and it was modeled after a successful program that was launched in 1990 and helped control acid rain in the Midwest. It was initially funded by a $1.1 million grant from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, and President Obama was a board member at the time. After the Democrats won the White House, the House and the Senate in 2008, businesses and investors flocked to the exchange, believing Congress would quickly approve the program. And it almost happened. The House of Representatives passed a bill proposed by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, which would have made cap and trade law. But the Senate couldn't muster the votes, and everything went downhill from there. "When those that voted for the measure in 2009 went home on July 4th after the vote, they met widespread outrage among their constituents," said Nick Loris, an analyst with Heritage Foundation. Conservatives renamed the idea "cap and tax," and they began an assault on the program. In the last week, following the Nov. 2 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, the slide became an avalanche. Investors in CCX, including Sandor and former Vice President Al Gore, sold the exchange to a company involved in commodities trading. Sale records show that Sandor cleared more than $90 million for his 16 percent stake in the company. Meanwhile, the White House has dropped all references to cap and trade from its web site; and, unlike the heralded climate summit in Copenhagen last year, a 10-day meeting in Mexico beginning Nov. 29 on the next steps to battle global warming has not even mentioned publicly by the administration. "The pieces of the puzzle just kept breaking off," Loris said. "And Obama has given up on it.” But both Loris and Ebell say that isn't necessarily cause for celebrating. "I would like to have a party and say we won, but the truth is were are still in the middle of it," Ebell said. "The problem is now that the administration changed strategy and is using existing laws and regulations, like the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and EPA regulations to implement its agenda. And unlike the cap and trade effort, it is much harder to get the public excited about rule changes." "Obama will try a piecemeal approach," Loris said. "And they have a much better chance of becoming law than cap and trade ever did.” Republicans in the new Congress, for their part, will try to pass a law "to stop all regulation of greenhouse gases using existing legal authority," Ebell said. "And we are pretty sure we can get 60 votes in the Senate on it."[/release] [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/09/collapse-chicago-climate-exchange-means-strategy-shift-global-warming-curbs/[/url] This will not end easily.

stop using fox news, jesus fucking christ

Meh Global Warming, nothing important really.

[QUOTE=Warhol;25964573]stop using fox news, jesus fucking christ[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;25964692]Meh Global Warming, nothing important really.[/QUOTE] uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no, it is.

[QUOTE=Warhol;25965199]uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no, it is.[/QUOTE] Isn't it just a natural cycle or have I too been caught up with the angsty teen rebellion against the mainstream global warming

Most scientists are pretty sure the climate change is partly due to human interactions with the environment. Of course, if you ask a large portion of politicians it's just a scam for more research money and we should all keep using lots of clean American oil that we bought from countries that hate us.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;25965290]Isn't it just a natural cycle or have I too been caught up with the angsty teen rebellion against the mainstream global warming[/QUOTE] Well seeing as how you are wrong approximately 85% of the time, I'd say we can assume it's the latter.

don wurry guise we hav jardine

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;25965290]Isn't it just a natural cycle or have I too been caught up with the angsty teen rebellion against the mainstream global warming[/QUOTE] [img]http://forums.accuweather.com/uploads/post-1182-1223841254.gif[/img] oh, totally natural.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25965663]Well seeing as how you are wrong approximately 85% of the time, I'd say we can assume it's the latter.[/QUOTE] oh cool thanks

look up topsoil depletion, makes global warming look like nothing

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25966422]look up topsoil depletion, makes global warming look like nothing[/QUOTE] or the water crisis. That's another fun one. Oh, and the energy crisis.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25967197]or the water crisis. That's another fun one. Oh, and the energy crisis.[/QUOTE] yea, there are so many better examples of humanity being fucked that its sad that people only look at global warming

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25967232]yea, there are so many better examples of humanity being fucked that its sad that people only look at global warming[/QUOTE] Actually they're all going to kill thousands of people and we're all fucked.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25966422]look up topsoil depletion, makes global warming look like nothing[/QUOTE] did you just make an intelligent post what the hell

[QUOTE=TH89;25967461]did you just make an intelligent post what the hell[/QUOTE] This is proof that something on earth most be going really wrong

[QUOTE=Warhol;25966174][img_thumb]http://forums.accuweather.com/uploads/post-1182-1223841254.gif[/img_thumb] oh, totally natural.[/QUOTE] If we were to go by that chart, and assuming this whole cap and trade thing wasn't a scam, shouldn't those countries producing more CO2 do this first? I mean look, The US is at the bottom of the chart, and Canada is the Highest Identified Country, And they're aren't as big. Think about it. Why start with least offender instead of the worst offender? (Does anybody have a left over bad reading rating from the old board?)

[QUOTE=Glaber;25967713]If we were to go by that chart, and assuming this whole cap and trade thing wasn't a scam, shouldn't those countries producing more CO2 do this first? I mean look, The US is at the bottom of the chart, and Canada is the Highest Identified Country, And they're aren't as big. Think about it. Why start with least offender instead of the worst offender?[/QUOTE] I think you're looking at that chart the wrong way. Also CO2 is overrated in it's effect on current global warming. First off part of what's causing this warming period is the natural cycle of warming and cooling, second, Methane does far more in terms of warming the globe than CO2.

[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;25968073]I think you're looking at that chart the wrong way. Also CO2 is overrated in it's effect on current global warming. First off part of what's causing this warming period is the natural cycle of warming and cooling, second, Methane does far more in terms of warming the globe than CO2.[/QUOTE] I always see them say natural warming and cooling but even if it was i dont see how it should stop us from wanting to use a better energy source because even if global warming is false, all the other shit we are doing to are world shows that we have to change a few things

I wouldn't mind a better energy source either, it just needs to be affordable, and done for the Right reasons.

[QUOTE=Glaber;25967713]If we were to go by that chart, and assuming this whole cap and trade thing wasn't a scam, shouldn't those countries producing more CO2 do this first? I mean look, The US is at the bottom of the chart, and Canada is the Highest Identified Country, And they're aren't as big. Think about it. Why start with least offender instead of the worst offender?[/QUOTE] are you illiterate? Look at the fucking chart again.

[QUOTE=Warhol;25966174][img_thumb]http://forums.accuweather.com/uploads/post-1182-1223841254.gif[/img_thumb] oh, totally natural.[/QUOTE] Doesn't this chart show just Global CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning. Instead of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and natural CO2 levels?

[QUOTE=Glaber;25967713]If we were to go by that chart, and assuming this whole cap and trade thing wasn't a scam, shouldn't those countries producing more CO2 do this first? I mean look, The US is at the bottom of the chart, and Canada is the Highest Identified Country, And they're aren't as big. Think about it. Why start with least offender instead of the worst offender?[/QUOTE] the countries are stacked on top of each other

[QUOTE=Glaber;25967713]If we were to go by that chart, and assuming this whole cap and trade thing wasn't a scam, shouldn't those countries producing more CO2 do this first? I mean look, The US is at the bottom of the chart, and Canada is the Highest Identified Country, And they're aren't as big. Think about it. Why start with least offender instead of the worst offender?[/QUOTE] Glaber, you're a fucking idiot and deserve to be identified as such.

Well excuse me for the chart not having a key for how to be read. When I see a Chart like that, unless it says overall total, I take it to mean that they are overlapping and that each line corresponds to the countries' total it's identified with and not the overall total.

I live in chicago, and I will safely say this; No one gives a shit. its a fly-to fly-out city

[QUOTE=Glaber;25969027]Well excuse me for the chart not having a key for how to be read. When I see a Chart like that, unless it says overall total, I take it to mean that they are overlapping and that each line corresponds to the countries' total it's identified with and not the overall total.[/QUOTE] Don't you think it's rather silly for canada to have more carbon emissions than the US when the US has ten times the population? [editline]9th November 2010[/editline] use a little common sense

[QUOTE=Glaber;25969027]Well excuse me for the chart not having a key for how to be read. When I see a Chart like that, unless it says overall total, I take it to mean that they are overlapping and that each line corresponds to the countries' total it's identified with and not the overall total.[/QUOTE] How could you possibly interpret the chart in that manner? The sections are clearly colour-coded. Is Canada the green or the pink though? I can't tell where it's pointing.

[QUOTE=Glaber;25969027]Well excuse me for the chart not having a key for how to be read. When I see a Chart like that, unless it says overall total, I take it to mean that they are overlapping and that each line corresponds to the countries' total it's identified with and not the overall total.[/QUOTE] So the USA has the least amount of CO2 emissions? That doesn't even make sense logically, it's quite obvious how the graph is meant to be interpreted. it's very rare that you have graphs where the info is overlapping in such a manner.