UK’s Richest Man Could Make More Than £1 Billion from Carbon Trading Scheme
December 16th, 2009Via: ClickGreen:
New analysis released by climate change NGO Sandbag has revealed that the UK’s richest resident, Lakshmi Mittal, CEO and major shareholder of the steel giant ArcelorMittal, could make over £1 billion between now and 2012 from his company’s participation in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme.
Good god. There are now surely MORE than enough indications that the Carbon tax scheme is yet another scam from “those at-the-top-who-love-us-so-dearly.” Yet it’s surprising how vociferous the belief in human influenced global warming really is. It seems so many in the environmental moving cannot think critically about this issue of climate change which is an inherently ambiguous science met alone the obvious politicization.
If you don’t tow the line on this, then it seems you are immediately lumped into the oil lobby. This is very much part of the divide and conquer scenario so beloved of the PtB and it’s so frustrating to see all this young energy and awareness being syphoned off to dead-end protests about “saving the planet.” Sure, there is a desperate need for us all to tackle environmental problems but to try and prevent a natural cycle from occuring is to court disaster.
My environmentalist / eco-activist friends they find it very difficult to take aboard the idea that the climate change and much of the environmental movement has been hijacked – rather like a form of eco-intelpro. And this remains the biggest problem: the lack of understanding regarding the pathology of social systems vis a vis ponerology and the psychopathological “infection” that can undergo originally sound ideologies or science. Well, anything pure or truthful really…
Education on this is the fist step towards any kind of progress in seeing behind the curtain imo.
Hey-ho.
I don’t know. An entire chapter of my biology courses back in high school (6 or 7 years ago) was dedicated to the greenhouse effect of certain gases, particularly CO2. Maybe all that stuff was BS, but I yet have to find something to contradict that science. The large quantities of CH4 underneath the Siberian ice layer kinda look like a doom trigger – from all sources I’ve read.
I’ll try to discuss the matter with the teacher I had at the time, she’s a friend’s mum – as well as a competent educator.
Well, the science on CO2 being the baddie in all is very far from proven and may be quite wrong. (If you go to globalresearch.ca they have quite comprehensive section on this.) I don’t think it’s ALL BS – the devil is in the details. For instance, I do consider there to be definite climate change and with big environmental changes on the way, I just don’t think the science is anywhere near objective or rigorous enough to suggest something like human-influenced global warming. One always has to ask who benefits from pushing such a belief? And when you see shysters like Al Gore and other Goldman Sacs types jumping on the bandwagon one has to really question what is science and what is the same old agenda.
Here’s a rather interesting website, covering CO2 induced warming and ‘debunking’ skeptical arguments in a concise style :
http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
On warming caused by CO2 :
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
On the “no warming for 10 years” argument (promoted at globalresearch) :
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Sadly, I’m afraid this debate can go on and on with all types of PR moves flooding in while little can be done on our parts but getting rid of dependencies on polluting activities, so I guess I’ll just leave it here at that point.