Global Carbon Trading and Associated ‘Fees’ Were Passed in the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill

Flashback: UN Climate Official Admits Climate Hoax is About Redistributing Wealth Globally

“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection”, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. “The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

usACTIONnews.com

November 19, 2010

We’ve been warning you that this is all about money and a political agenda, not about the environment. Now we get confirmation from the IPCC itself.

A Professor of the ‘Economics of Climate Change’, Edenhofer is Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) whose climate report is the political cover for almost all government action on global warming.

Just a year ago the disclosure of thousands of emails known as climategate showed that the information used for the IPCC’s climate report was fraudulent and manipulated to push the unproven theory of man made global warming.

Continuing disclosures of underlying ’studies’ showed that the IPCC did not use peer-reviewed scientific studies, as it claimed, but instead sought and referenced anything supporting its predetermined conclusion. One such ’study’ even turned out to be an opinion article by an environmental activist with no data whatsoever.

In an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Edenhofer exposed the real purpose behind the climate change scam [red emphasis added]:

NZZ am Sonntag: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Edenhofer: Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

But unlike the financial crisis, in climate policy a country benefits if it does not join in.

The financial crisis was an emergency operation – in the face of danger we behave more cooperatively. Such a thing will not happen in climate policy, because it will always remain questionable whether a specific event like a flood is a climate phenomenon. But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.

Just recently we have had the Director of the White House National Economic Council for President Barack Obama teaming up with George Soros to call for global carbon taxes. We had Obama endorsing global taxes on the eve of a UN summit, and as a Senator he introduced a bill, the Global Poverty Act (S 2433), to force U.S. compliance with the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which commits the nations of the world to supporting “innovative financing mechanisms” (global taxes) to supplement foreign aid spending. Obama ally and supporter Richard Trumka the AFL-CIO president is working with European socialists to enact a global financial transaction tax.

Five subcommittee chairman in the US House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to support the global climate tax to be proposed in the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Cancun Mexico. The Hill reports that the letter stated:

“A new global climate fund designed within the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] with the expertise, independence, and mandate to support developing countries in their efforts to build resilience to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a crucial component of addressing the global problem,” it states.

[The] letter from Reps. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (American Samoa), Brad Sherman (Calif.), Gary Ackerman (N.Y.), Donald Payne (N.J.) and Eliot Engel (N.Y.).

And they don’t really even need congress to make it happen. As we pointed out in a previous editorial the framework for global carbon trading and associated ‘fees’ is already passed in the financial reform monstrosity known as the Dodd-Frank bill:

On page 1,012 Section 750 ‘STUDY ON OVERSIGHT OF CARBON MARKETS’ the bill establishes an ‘INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP’ which includes the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as Chairman of the group, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Treasury, Chairman of the SEC, Administrator of the EPA, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commissioner of the FTC, and the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.

The group ‘ shall conduct a study on the oversight of existing and prospective carbon markets to ensure an efficient, secure and transparent carbon market‘.

Section 751 creates the ‘ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS ADVISORY COMMITTEE’ and makes said committee not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act which says ‘the function of advisory committees should be advisory only, and that all matters under their consideration should be determined, in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved’ and includes other public safe guards which can be ignored by this committee.

Global regulation and ‘fees’ are also set up in the bill. Section 752 ‘INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION’ requires the the Commodity Futures Trading commission, the SEC, and the prudential regulators (as that term is defined in section 1a(39) of the Commodity Exchange Act) to ‘consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities on the establishment of consistent international standards with respect to the regulation (including fees) of swaps, security-based swaps, swap entities, and security-based swap entities and may agree to such information-sharing arrangements as may be deemed to be necessary or appropriate’.

Read the bill here

So be prepared for more money to be taken from the American people with or without congressional approval.

There are many, many people like Professor of ‘Economics of Climate Change’ Edenhofer who have their whole sustenance, purpose and being wrapped up in the climate scam. There are trillions of dollars at stake and thousands of people want a piece of the action.

Flashback: Derivatives Bill Calls for U.S. Carbon Market Study

2300 damn pages! Someone shoved it in there, buried it. I don't care how many safeguards the politicos put in place, the traders are smarter and more creative. Before it imploded, Lehman Brothers, a bunch of thieving whores from the top down, was one of the prime cheerleaders of cap & trade and a member of USCAP. If you think you are going to corral Goldman in this most artificial of markets you're "420". - Derivatives bill calls for US carbon market study, Climateer Investing, April 23, 2010

In Washington, there's a code phrase for the middle ground that lawmakers find after a torrent of industry lobbying or partisan debate: "Let's do a study." The Wall Street reform bill may be the most extreme example: The financial reform legislation, which could become law later this month, orders government officials to conduct some 68 studies, according to a CNNMoney analysis. The bill also studies, among other things: short selling, reverse mortgages, improved insurance regulation, private student loans, oversight of carbon markets and the "feasibility of requiring use of standardized algorithmic descriptions for financial derivatives." - Congress Fixes Wall Street - and Orders up 68 Studies, CNNMoney.com, July 6, 2010

Reuters
April 22, 2010

A tough new proposal to regulate U.S. markets calls for top regulators and government officials to conduct a study on transparency in emerging U.S. carbon markets as part of the financial reform package.

The heads of the Treasury Department, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other U.S. agencies would be required to study oversight of existing and prospective carbon markets, according to the proposal, part of a bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee this week.

The goal of the study is "to ensure an efficient, secure, and transparent carbon market, including oversight of spot markets and derivative markets," the bill said.

Senator Blanche Lincoln's Agriculture Committee voted to advance the bill this week. It will be merged with the Senate Banking Committee's financial reform package, expected to be debated next week, which will likely include a crackdown on the unregulated $450 trillion derivatives market.

Emerging carbon markets are either voluntary or regional because the U.S. government does not limit emissions of gases blamed for warming the planet, considered a requirement before the launch of a national market.

Ten states in the U.S. Northeast operate a carbon market on power plants. In addition, the Chicago Climate Exchange CLIE.L also runs voluntary carbon markets.

Some critics of carbon markets say that not all of the credits that are traded in them represent true emissions reductions.

Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Lindsey Graham, a Republican and Joe Lieberman, an independent, hope to unveil a climate bill on Monday that is expected to include a carbon market on power plants beginning in 2012, which could be expanded to the manufacturers years later.

Other agency officials required to participate in the study would be the heads of the Agriculture Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistics arm of the Department of Energy.

The interagency group would be required to submit a report to Congress on their study within six months after the report becomes law.

What Do You Think of Carbon Regulation and 'International Harmonization' Being in the Financial Reform Bill?

Day Trading Portal

Cap and Trade was dropped because it was included in H.R.4173 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Also, other nations will have a say on how we run our nation when it comes to carbon regulation and we must share info with them.

Here is a sample below but I suggest you download the bill and read for yourself.

HR4173 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Sec.750-752.

SEC. 750. STUDY ON OVERSIGHT OF CARBON MARKETS. (e) REPORT.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the interagency group (see page 1013) shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under subsection (b), including recommendations for the oversight of existing and prospective carbon markets to ensure an efficient, secure, and transparent carbon market, including oversight of spot markets and derivative markets.

SEC. 752. INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION.

(a) In order to promote effective and consistent global regulation of swaps and security-based swaps, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the prudential regulators (as that term is defined in section 1a(39) of the Commodity Exchange Act), as appropriate, shall consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities on the establishment of consistent international standards with respect to the regulation (including fees) of swaps, security-based swaps, swap entities, and security-based swap entities and may agree to such information-sharing arrangements as may be deemed to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, swap counter parties, and security-based swap counterparties.

(b) In order to promote effective and consistent global regulation of contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery and options on such contracts, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities on the establishment of consistent international standards with respect to the regulation of contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery and options on such contracts, and may agree to such information-sharing arrangements as may be deemed necessary or appropriate in the public interest for the protection of users of contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery.

Carbon Market Oversight Study Released by Interagency Group

Carbon Capitalist
January 31, 2011

With the advent of the financial crisis which was caused by bad practices in the housing market, many people — especially politicians in Washington — have expressed their concern that a trading scheme for carbon emissions would be subject to the same type of behavior without significant oversight.

As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed last year in response to the financial crisis, Congress mandated the formation of a Working Group to “conduct a study on the oversight of existing and prospective carbon markets to ensure efficient, secure, and transparent carbon markets, including oversight of spot markets and derivative markets.”

Headed by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the working group was comprised of a number of different federal agencies including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After a number of months of deliberation, the Working Group delivered its findings to the Speaker of the House of Representatives in a document entitled Report on the Oversight of Existing and Prospective Carbon Markets. In their effort to conduct a thorough study, the Working Group solicited public comments from exchanges, clearinghouses, and other carbon market participants on top of doing their own extensive research.

The primary objectives of carbon market oversight highlighted in the study are as follows:

• Facilitate and protect price discovery in the carbon markets.
• Ensure appropriate levels of carbon market transparency.
• Allow for appropriate, broad market participation.
• Prevent manipulation, fraud and other market abuses.

In order to achieve these objectives, the study recommends a number of steps that should be taken in establishing robust oversight of the emerging primary, secondary and derivative carbon markets. In regards to derivative markets specifically, the new regulations laid out by the Dodd-Frank Act will play a major role moving forward. At the same time, the Working Group emphasized the important role that Wall Street plays in creating an efficient carbon market including the use of derivatives.

Much of the oversight that is needed for carbon markets depends on the design features of the program in question as made clear in the study. With the fraudulent and illegal activity that has plagued the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) especially in recent weeks, it will certainly be interesting to see how carbon market security and oversight in the United States will learn from these lessons by our counterparts across the pond.

Financial Market Reform and the Implications for Carbon Trading (Executive Summary)

Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University
January 2011

Concerns about regulating carbon markets became an increasingly integral part of the climate policy debate in the aftermath of recent episodes of market abuse and failure. In the absence of an existing comprehensive system of market oversight for carbon trading, policymakers drafting market-based climate legislation started including a range of market oversight provisions to help ensure that a new market, potentially valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year, would function properly.

President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) on July 21, 2010, while the effort to enact a federal cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stalled in the U.S. Senate. The new law will significantly expand regulation of financial market activity, including transactions associated with existing emissions trading markets.

The law will also presumably apply to financial market activity associated with any future federal carbon market, as well as carbon markets under development by the State of California and the Western Climate Initiative—an economy-wide cap-and-trade system comprised of seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces, scheduled to begin operation in 2012.

This paper provides an overview of the concerns raised and regulatory proposals put forward in the federal climate debate, and by regulators designing the Western Climate Initiative, regarding the financial market activity associated with carbon trading, and examines whether and how the Dodd-Frank Act addresses these concerns.

The oversight measures in various cap-and-trade proposals vary, with some climate bills creating general standards for market regulation and others including specific requirements regarding what instruments may trade, where trading may occur, and who may participate in the marketplace. In general, market oversight proposals became more restrictive as the climate debate progressed in the 110th and 111th Congresses...