Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Can Global Warming Be Slowed by Complex Concept of Carbon Trading?

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted March 6, 2008.


American businesses are finally getting on board with the complicated method of carbon trading to reduce emissions.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

By refusing to sign on to the Kyoto climate treaty, Americans have insulated ourselves from the complexities of the carbon market the European Union has been trading in for the last three years. But that state of ignorance, while not exactly blissful, is about to end.

On February 26 and 27, the international carbon trading financial community descended on San Francisco to present Carbon Forum America, the first American carbon trading conference to include a full trade show featuring 80 companies that manage carbon credit assets and trades, negotiate contracts, validate projects, and perform various other market services. Why California and why now?

California is the US leader on climate policy and now is the time the tea leaves are spelling out a coming certainty for investors. The first serious US climate change measure, the Lieberman-Warner bill, has passed out of a Senate committee. All three front-running presidential candidates have acknowledged a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions is inevitable.

US regional programs like the Western Climate Initiative are picking up steam, and 32 states have now adopted hard emissions targets. The conference sponsor, the International Emissions Trading Association, is banking on the idea US investors will embrace a worldwide carbon trading market that reached $60 billion in 2007 and could mushroom to $300 billion or more very soon. But what exactly is a carbon market?

At a press briefing, IETA president and CEO Henry Derwent acknowledged the concept was a difficult one to explain. "Carbon is an externality, not a commodity. People say, 'What on earth do I need that for? It's not a pork belly.'"

Derwent said investors should look at carbon trading as a form of derivative like a hedge fund. He defended the idea of traders making a profit from carbon trading. "They should be taking a margin for a service. If they do their job well they will provide the world with energy with a lower risk of climate change."

Environmental critics of a cap-and-trade system worry carbon traders, like other derivatives traders, will get carried away and game the system to produce excessive profits for themselves. But the biggest issue as the US contemplates its first national climate bill is the how to allocate the emissions under the cap.

The European Union Emissions Trading System established under the Kyoto protocol gave away emissions allocations to polluting industries in a grandfathering scheme. This depressed the price of carbon and got the market off to a slow start in 2005. The Lieberman-Warner bill would repeat this strategy in the US by giving away over half of the pollution allowances -- worth billions of dollars -- to big industries like coal-burning electric utilities.

By contrast, both Clinton and Obama advocate auctioning 100 percent of the allowances. One hundred percent auctioning is a litmus test for much of the environmental community, which sees the revenues as a crucial source of funds to pay for research and development of renewable energy and to support low-income people who will be hurt by higher prices.

In fact, a cap-and-trade system with 100 percent auctioning of allowances is functionally not very different from a carbon tax. At a Carbon Forum plenary session on potential federal greenhouse gas regulation, representatives of some big corporations weighed in on the auctions debate and other issues.

Ralph Moran, West Coast Climate Change director for British Petroleum, said his company supports some amount of auctioning, but it will dramatically increase the cost of doing business. He warned there was no guarantee government would use the revenues from auctions wisely. Rich Rosenzwieg, Chief Operations Officer of Natsource, a carbon trading firm, continued the theme of mistrust in government. He said we should start small with auctions because "the public won't support giving government billions of dollars in revenue."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, carbon trading, carbon, climage change

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Good Idea? Civilized Debate
Posted by: bfitz1307 on Mar 6, 2008 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously something needs to be done to combat carbon emissions, and the global warming crises, but is this the answer? Let us think about this, in what I think is a rather logal way. Suppose the government decideds they will auction off 100 percent. This is going to increase input/production costs for many companies, and who do you think will inevitably pay for it? The consumers will pay for this through higher prices for gas, electricity, plastics, etc. This is like OPEC raising the price of oil and EXXON and BP have record profits. Their profit levels don't stay the same, or decrease, when it costs more to buy and refine oil, they just increase the price to consumers. I don't know that this is a completely bad idea, after all solving global warming is a big priority, and everyone will have to sacrifice no matter what. Let's call this what it is though, a tax, but not on corporations but on consumers. It may be a necessary evil though to solve this global problem. What do the rest of you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Idea? Civilized Debate Posted by: nigelbest
bfitz1307; It is too little too late.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 7, 2008 12:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Preventing the fall of civilization is a daunting task, but not yet impossible. We
have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of
avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in
Six Degrees. We have to deal with enormous changes in where agriculture works
because of climate changes that are already unavoidable. Don't give up. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» pfft! we don't have a chance Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Whoa! Posted by: PaulC
How the ocean makes H2S
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 7, 2008 12:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article in Scientific American at:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
here is how the hot ocean makes the H2S that kills everybody.

Step 1: CO2 from some source warms the earth. 251 million
years ago, 201 million years ago and 60 million years ago it was
supervolcanoes. The first of these created Siberia. This time the
CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. Coal is the worst.

Step 2: The oceans cannot dissolve enough oxygen when they get
too warm, so the fish die. I don't know why or when the plants in
the ocean die.

Step 3: "Deep-dwelling anaerobic microbes churn out copious
amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which also dissolves into the
seawater. As its concentration builds, the H2S diffuses upward,
where it encounters oxygen diffusing downward. So long as their
balance remains undisturbed, the oxygenated and hydrogen
sulfide-saturated waters stay separated, and their interface, known
as the chemocline, is stable. Typically the green and purple sulfur
bacteria live in that chemocline, enjoying the supply of H2S from
below and sunlight from above."
The chemocline moves up and down in response to the climate.
The warmer the ocean, the higher the chemocline. Heat alone
cannot take all of the oxygen out of the ocean unless the ocean
boils, but warmer water dissolves less oxygen. Oxygen and
H2S cannot exist in the same mixed volume of water because O2
reacts with H2S by the equation:

6H2S + 9O2 = 6H2O + 6SO2

H2S removes O2 from the ocean long before heat does. If the
deep ocean warms and the supply of sulfur is adequate, the sulfur
bacteria:
1. Work faster because reaction rate doubles with each 10 degrees
C temperature rise and
2. Have a greater volume of ocean that is below the chemocline
and free of oxygen in which to live. Oxygen kills sulfur bacteria.
No, we can't pump enough oxygen down there to kill them.

The supply of H2S increases because of the above positive
feedbacks. The chemocline continues to move upward. Will a
new equilibrium be reached before the surface is reached? Is
there a barrier to chemocline rise or is it like a flipflop circuit? Is
there a threshhold temperature for this to happen? What is the
threshhold temperature of the ocean for this to happen? Does
anybody know? Ocean currents keep the deep water cold now,
but a change in the currents caused by global warming could
warm up part of the deep water. That would be a third positive
feedback.

Setp 4: Since there is no oxygen in the ocean to burn up the H2S,
H2S bubbles out of the ocean. H2S is a poison gas, so everybody
dies. The supply of H2S will be ample in spite of the reaction of
H2S with oxygen, not that we would want to breathe SO2. There
were extinction events 251 million years ago, 201 million years
ago and 60 million years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How the ocean makes H2S Posted by: donnee
bfitz1307: The #1 problem is burning COAL to make electricity
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 7, 2008 1:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear.

My sole source of income is my retirement annuity from the federal
government. I am telling you the above to avoid the horrific
consequences of global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The World Has Been Getting Colder Since 1998
Posted by: opmoc on Mar 7, 2008 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The actual temperature measurements for the last 10 years indicate that the World is getting colder.

Over the last 12 months global temperatures have dropped precipitously and have wiped out a century of warming.

Whilst 12 months or even 10 years may be too short a period of measurement to prove a trend - these figures cannot be ignored.

However, the global warming movement is a political/religious one where the facts that don't support the philosophy are ignored.

Its the equivalent of Jesus Christ turning up and proving to everyone that he is God. The atheists simply will not accept it - because they know they are right (or vice versa).

You might think so what - we have still got to stop environmental destruction - and we will all look silly if the entire Global Warming movement accepts that they have got it completely wrong.

However, if the wrong decisions are taken, and conventional power generation is replaced by windmills and solar power - then Billions will die.

Our only hope if we are approaching a new ice age will be to use all the power sources available which includes oil, gas, coal, nuclear and geothermal.

This maybe against your religion/political philosophy - but mass genocide via freezing and starvation is against mine.

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Garbage is forever... Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Nice Picture in Your Link... Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: I have no idea Posted by: bitsfick
» Link to an oil company shill Posted by: brunowe
» Exactly right, brunowe Posted by: PaulC
» And you've misrepresent it Posted by: brunowe
The Global Warming Movement Has Already Resulted in Death Through Starvation
Posted by: opmoc on Mar 7, 2008 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some idiot comes up with the totally ridiculous idea of making ethanol from corn on a massive worldwide scale - irrespective of the scientific fact that it takes more conventional energy to make the ethanol than the end product ethanol contains. Sure its relatively easy to achieve political change because most politicians simply do not understand science.

So the effect with food suddenly being diverted to make ethanol - is that food prices rise significantly. Now in the "rich" West that might not matter that much - we just have to pay considerably more for a loaf of bread.

But the price rise is global - because we live in a global market.

To illustrate this, I was in a part of India a couple of weeks ago where the entire State had gone on strike for one day - because food prices had risen by 100%.

Right at the bottom of world human society, there are people actually living on so little money that its scarecely believable that they have enough to buy sufficient food to keep them alive.

Well in some parts of India - they haven't - and India is a relatively affluent country compared to many parts of the World.

Have some compassion and think about the poorest people in the world before you encourage governments to adopt ridiculous policies that will starve them to death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One part of the solution is simple.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Mar 7, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The average European uses a fraction of the fossil fuel that the Average American uses, while Europe is economically competitive with the United States - and is rapidly gaining advantage. Why is this?

It's not rocket science. Europeans pay a tax for energy use. It may not be called a carbon tax, but it has the same effect. Taxes are a great disincentive, because they artificially raise the cost and therefore the value of a commodity.

Here in the U.S. we artificially drive down the perceived value of carbon emitting fuels with various subsidies and tax incentives, while we still pay the real cost through the taxes that fund those incentives. This misdirection causes individuals to make decisions that are against their own interests. We desperately need to develop a sense of the worth of fossil fuels.

A carbon tax would be a partial solution to a myriad of vexing problems - from dependence on foreign oil to general air pollution to carbon emissions. I would apply the tax at its source (wellhead or tanker or coal mine). The tax could be returned to the consumer either directly via a distribution system like that used by Alaska to distribute oil revenues to all its citizens, or through reductions in other taxes. I like the idea of sending an equal check to every U.S. citizen because it would provide positive feedback to the results of conservation.

In avoiding an obvious solution, American politicians gave us CAFE standards, thus causing the proliferation of SUVs, and gas mileage that didn't budge for thirty years. Now they want to put off the inevitable reckoning with a complicated, unwieldy, and ineffectual cap-and-trade system. Once again, they ignore the obvious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a great idea, if you're the cabontrepreneur who owns the caboncash printing press.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 7, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Otherwise, it's just a really dumb idea: inventing an artificial economy to allow polluters to buy an excuse to pollute.

Those who support this as an answer to global warming: you're being had by groups on Wall Street and elsewhere that want to use the power of the government to make a worthless piece of paper profitable for themselves.

It's a damn fine cottage industry, if you own the cottage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh No!
Posted by: ClassAct on Mar 7, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon trading provides legitimation for pollution. You may object to your local smokestacks or smog, but in the end there is no one to hear your complaint because accountability has been completely diverted to “market forces.” This is the typical solution of the elites, finding a way to make more profit out of suffering, make a solution by applying more of the problem.
To increase the cost of petroleum and thus reduce driving, the US could simply repeal the oil depletion allowance. Logically we should in fact have been imposing an equivalent oil depletion tax all along, since the oil being depleted potentially belongs to the public and not to the oil companies until it has been pumped. The caveat to a petroleum tax, it should be noted, is that the funds so raised should be spent on upgrading and expanding public transportation as the reliable and desirable alternative to individual transport.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon trading will not solve the Western U.S. water crisis -
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 7, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which, as any honest climate scientist will tell you, is directly linked to human-induced global warming. The Western U.S. is drying out in a long-term climate shift, as shown by decreased stream flows, slimmer snowpacks, retreating glaciers, less soil moisture, and increased wildfires.

This means less water to grow crops year-round. It means massive flooding in the spring, due to rainstorms replacing snowstorms in the mountains. It means long, dry summers every year, followed by bitter dry cold, followed by massive winter and spring flooding.

This will affect everyone. Here in California, we grow over 1/2 of U.S. produce. Here's a must-read story: http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/water-wars

"California is now trying to figure out how to get water from the delta to southern and central parts of the state, big producers of the nation’s nut, fruit and vegetable crops. Farmers inside the delta—also major producers of the nation’s fruits and vegetables—have reason to fear plans to tap the delta. Farmers in the area say a canal taking freshwater from the delta could harm water quality. Mike Wade, the executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition, said that farmers fear that building the canal would leave little incentive to maintain the levee system that protects local farmland."

The squeeze is on - as this shows, there isn't enough water to go around anymore. Anyone who thinks the global rise in food prices isn't related to reduced agricultural productivity should look at the crop loss record of the past few years due to extreme weather events. This is putting supply-side pressure on food prices - and yes, it is real:
Global warming reduced crop yields over past 20 years, March 2007


A lot of this is due to climate instability - warm spells in late winter might lead to early plantings, which are then destroyed later by floods or freak storms. Summer heat waves also wipe out crops, as do persistent droughts.

The next big squeeze will be the refugee one - as sea levels continue to rise, hundreds of millions of people will be on the move, at the very same time that agriculture takes even bigger hits than seen yet.

Carbon trading is like putting a band-aid on a bullet hole. What really needs to happen is massive investment in renewable energy, an end to the use of fossil fuels as energy sources, and an end to tropical deforestation and wetland destruction. Otherwise, things will continue on the business-as-usual scenario for the next few centuries, and all the world's coasts will be under ten meters of water, at least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are absolutely correct. Posted by: newmoonnaturals
What is the benefit of carbon trading?
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 7, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My understanding was that there is no less carbon being released, rather it's some criteria that would allow some corporations to emit more and others less by bartering or trading. Ultimately who gains by such a tradeoff when nothing really changes. Would appreciate hearing what others have to say about what they may know. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The benefit of carbon trading. Posted by: KeepsonTickn
One more thing, it's illusory.
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 7, 2008 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can any type of Foundry anywhere in this USofA emit white smoke from their stacks, but when it settles on your vehicle it is black soot residue? Is there some type of Magic going on here and from most other industrial smokestacks? Somebody has to know something about this transformation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» steam and soot Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Global Warming is not a "movement."
Posted by: davescott on Mar 8, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global warming is a well-documented fact that threatens mass starvation and hundreds of millions of environmental refugees. And there are other ways to address it besides growing corn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good - I missed that spin Posted by: PaulC
Then you also know that coal is dirty and nuclear is clean
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 9, 2008 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Yucca Mountain is full of nuclear fuel that needs to be reprocessed. We used
to reprocess spent fuel rods until 1/2 ton of enriched uranium somehow wound up
in Israel.
2. Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56
to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go:
Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
3. See the rest of Alex Gabbard's article. U238 can be bred into Plutonium and
Thorium can be bred into Uranium. We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal cinders and
smoke.
4. See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 10, 2008 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon trading is just moving pollution around.

Consider this:
It has been reported that 25% of the smog producing pollution in the air over Los Angeles now comes from China, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. We are finding out more every day that we do not live on a Big Blue Marble, we are living on a fairly small and highly interconnected one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off the Wall
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Mar 10, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An interesting interview occurred on on the Jan 27 edition of the radio program Vote Rescue which describes how an ordinary citizen can initiate criminal charges against a public official. The particular discussion involves Texas state officials, but the procedure may be applicable to federal officials as well.

Are there any attorneys reading this who can offer an opinion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global warming is not caused by human.
Posted by: dchabot on Mar 10, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Check this article
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Even I can demolish this article Posted by: ReallyBearish
Koolaid
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 10, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody's gotta make it so the rest of us can drink it. Just wait till petrocollapse....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

carbon emission trading is a scam
Posted by: unity1 on Mar 10, 2008 11:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we all know it, we feel it intuitively - its just another way the elite have of making money out of tragedy and degradation - some say its been invented to fund both the war of terror that is being waged on you and me as well as help fund the plans for splitting the world up into 4 unions and ti help pay for a one world government

every country in the world is running to get on this over hyped band wagon - and most of us know its a scam - we feel it but continue to deny it like everything else that now comes back to bite us on the bum

we talk about our rights but are not mature enough to see the responsibilities we have and so now we reap the consequences of our unconscious lifestyles - and the business elites do what they do best, they scam money from all of us to pay for their greed and we the consumer will pay through the nose for their continual polluting and we will gladly do so because it will be a huge green wash

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]