In a sombre report on the outlook for next year, the credit rating agency raised the prospect that future tax rises and spending cuts could trigger social unrest in a range of countries from the developing to the developed world.

It said that in the coming years, evidence of social unrest and public tension may become just as important signs of whether a country will be able to adapt as traditional economic metrics. Signalling that a fiscal crisis remains a possibility for a leading economy, it said that 2010 would be a “tumultuous year for sovereign debt issuers”.

It added that the sheer quantity of debt to be raised by Britain and other leading nations would increase the risk of investor fright.

Strikingly, however, it added that even if countries reached agreement on the depth of the cuts necessary to their budgets, they could face difficulties in carrying out the cuts. The report, which comes amid growing worries about Britain’s credit rating, said: “In those countries whose debt has increased significantly, and especially those whose debt has become unaffordable, the need to rein in deficits will test social cohesiveness. The test will be starker as growth disappoints and interest rates rise.”

It said the main obstacle for fiscal consolidation plans would be signs not necessarily of economic strength but of “political and social tension”.

Greece, where the government has committed to drastic cuts in public expenditure, has suffered a series of riots over the past year which are thought to have been fuelled by economic pressures.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6819470/Moodys-warns-of-social-unrest-as-sovereign-debt-spirals.html

———-

will we see more of this around the place..the PIGS are the most likely to see action at this stage (portugal,ireland,greece and spain)

they keep squeezing us hard..people have limits..

401

The announcement by the United Nations this week that it will license the minting of silver and gold bullion coins bearing the UN logo may be the button that launches metal prices into orbit.

In its wide-ranging report this fall, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) stated that the system of currencies and international banking practices within today’s economies were inadequate, and responsible for the present economic crisis. The report advocates that the present monetary system, wherein the dollar acts as the global reserve currency be re-examined “with urgency”.

The UNCTAD Report was the first time a major multinational institution had forwarded such a suggestion or measure, although a number of countries, including Russia and Brazil have supported replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. China’s central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan has mentioned that the dollar could become a basket of currencies instead.

The UN commission dismissed such a widening, saying a multiple-country system “may be equally unstable, and not transparent.”

The panel is seeking more monetary balance for developing countries, and a means for them to retain their reserves and domestic savings independent of foreign agencies and arrangements.

Panel Chair US economist Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economics laureate, has made plain that there was “a growing consensus that there are problems with the dollar reserve system. Developing countries are lending the United States trillions dollars at almost zero interest rates when they have huge needs themselves,” Stiglitz stated.

“It’s indicative of the nature of the problem. It’s a net transfer, in a sense, to the United States, a form of foreign aid.”

A report contributor, Detlef Koffe, concluded that “Replacing the dollar with a bullion currency would solve some of the problems related to the potential of countries running large deficits and would help stability,”

US Fed spokesperson Patrick Paulsen acknowledged that there could be some strong reaction in the US to the global currency, and that it would “…be viewed as a step toward a New World Order. But those same people have probably lost patience with the money-changers as well.”

He clarified that he would “…nonetheless anticipate that the western currencies will continue to depreciate, given Asia’s ascendancy in trade and manufacturing, to find their own value and enable their economies to compete. This is a UN perogrative we cannot and should not control, it’s returning to what we had with Bretton-Woods.”

The UN decided to provide a “public option” savings currency, whereby currency mints will be licensed to mint two kinds of bullion coins the size of the 1€ coin - the Uno (silver ~$5) and the Oro (gold, ~$500). The names were adopted from the book “The Humanist”, which foresees the UN being better funded by 2015 via its licensing fees, expected to be 10-15%.

The coins have a marker chemical in them that enables their authentication and processing by modified retail ATM and exchange machines in Europe, which will be distributed globally. Any licensee, public or private, can produce such bullion coinage under contract. The United Nations is doing no more than what most countries do already, except that the value of its coins will reflect their bullion weight.

Armand Dufour of the European Bank welcomes their introduction. “People have enough Fiat currency options, government and banks cannot intrude on bullion coins – they will have their own inviolable value.”

He does have one concern, however. “If we see a dismounting from the US dollar, as is inevitable in the main view, there will be a strong move to the Oro, which may drive its price up to the point where governments will not allow its circulation; they will try to isolate it.”

“That’s when the fun begins.” he said.

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:TtY2TpKXC1QJ:www.examiner.com/x-32916-Vancouver-Humanism-Examiner~y2009m12d15-UN-to-produce-bullion-coins-as-world-currency+vancouver+examiner.com+gold+coins&hl=en&gl=au&strip=0

Armand Dufour of the European Bank says that he welcomes the introduction of the gold coins.

However, he goes on to add that there is a danger that if the US dollar weakens, there will be a strong move towards the Oro.

In turn this could potentially drive the value of the coin up to a level where international governments will not allow it to be circulated.

http://www.gold.org/news/2009/12/16/story/13674/gold_coins_to_bear_the_un_logo/

———-

hmm..that wouldnt be a good sign for the USD eh?

“he goes on to add that there is a danger that if the US dollar weakens, there will be a strong move towards the Oro.”

the “oro” sounds like a biscuit..

401

———–

the bonds..the drop in ratings..

401

The magazine said the recession itself was the story of the year and without Mr Bernanke at the helm it would have been a lot worse.

Mr Bernanke, who is 56, is a former Princeton University professor and an expert on the Great Depression.

US President Barack Obama and the Apple chief executive Steve Jobs were also in the running for the award.

President Obama was last year’s winner.

“We’ve rarely had such a perfect revision of the cliche that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” said Richard Stengel, Time Magazine’s managing editor.

“Bernanke didn’t just learn from history; he wrote it himself and was damned if he was going to repeat it.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8416482.stm

THE US Senate banking committee confirmed Ben Bernanke for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve board by a 16-7 vote today.

The full Senate is expected to take up Bernanke’s nomination shortly after politicians return from the holiday recess on January 19.

One Democratic member of the panel, Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, joined six Republicans including the senior GOP member of the panel in opposing Mr Bernanke’s confirmation.

“I strongly disapprove of some of the past deeds of the Federal Reserve while Ben Bernanke was a member and its chairman, and I lack confidence in what little planning for the future he has articulated,” Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the committee, said.

The politician has expressed severe doubts about the Fed’s various market interventions in a bid to mitigate the impact of the financial crisis.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/us-senate-banking-committee-endorses-ben-bernanke-for-a-second-term/story-e6frg96f-1225811590844

———-

this must be the aprils fools day in december..no?

stalin won this 3 times..nixon twice..dubya once..what a parade of assholes!

and gets another term for all his good work!

401

There’s the president of the United States, sitting in the Cabinet room at the White House, cameras rolling, talking with the heads of the country’s biggest banks, each one of which had benefited from an extraordinary government effort last year to prevent the financial system from collapsing. The purpose of the meeting is to pressure banks to make more credit available to small businesses, to restructure delinquent mortgages rather than pushing them into default and to call off their lobbyists, who have been trying to water down the administration’s proposal to reform and strengthen bank regulation.

At the same moment, officials next door at Treasury are putting the final touches on agreements that will dramatically reduce the legal and political leverage the administration holds over those very same banks by allowing them to repay the bailout money they received.

Hello? Is this what passes for political arm-twisting and bare-knuckle negotiation at the Obama White House? It’s bad enough that the president’s top priority of health reform was hijacked by a sanctimonious senator who can’t seem to decide which side he’s on. But in a capital where it is more important to be feared than loved, it’s even worse for a president to tear into Wall Street “fat cats” one day and then let them off their leash the next.

As far as I can tell, top administration officials are fixated on voter rage over bank bailouts and the resulting hit to the president’s poll ratings. So they’re looking for any way to show that the economy is improving and that the government will not only get its bailout money back, but earn a profit besides.

By rushing to cash in their chips, however, the administration not only gave up political leverage and additional profit, but took the risk that one or more of the banks may find that it can’t make it on its own. While the financial system has rebounded faster than anyone could have imagined, potential threats still loom — a further collapse of commercial real estate, for example, or a string of sovereign debt defaults. And bank profits, while having rebounded, remain significantly dependent on the availability of cheap funding from the Federal Reserve and other central banks that cannot be expected to last indefinitely.

In other words, we’re not out of the woods just yet. That’s the reason cited by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner when he notified Congress last week that he was extending the much-maligned Troubled Assets Relief Program for another year. But somehow that same caution was thrown to the wind when Bank of America, Citigroup and then Wells Fargo demanded to be freed of the stigma and extra supervision that came along with the bailout funds.

Certainly the banks’ requests to repay the government, all in the space of two weeks, look suspiciously like they were driven not so much by financial fundamentals as by the same herd instincts that got them into trouble in the first place. There is no evidence that banks that remain under TARP are losing large numbers of customers or face significantly higher funding costs. And while banks are quick to identify executives they could not hire or traders who were lured away by hedge funds because of TARP’s pay restrictions, it doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of equally talented people who would be thrilled to do these jobs for less-than-Goldman wages. Certainly there is no harm in using TARP restrictions to slow Wall Street’s destructive arms race.

The better argument for letting banks out of TARP is that investors once again are willing to provide the private capital necessary to repay the government and provide a sufficient cushion against future losses. It’s certainly encouraging that banks have raised $160 billion this year on capital markets. But you’ll pardon my skepticism if I note that it was the same markets that were throwing money at the same banks back during the bubble. If regulators should have learned any lesson from that debacle, it is that they need to make their own judgments about bank balance sheets rather than trusting in the infallibility of markets.

As to why investors may be so eager to put money into bank stocks, one need only consult Standard & Poor’s evaluation of Bank of America’s credit ranking on the eve of its recent stock offering. “We consider B of A to be highly systemically important and therefore continue to believe that B of A would receive extraordinary government support if necessary, though we do not believe such support will be needed,” it said. In other words, they were bailed out once, they could be bailed out again.

Of course, S&P was wrong once before about Bank of America, and it could be wrong again. The political reality is that, no matter how large or interconnected, no bank — and certainly not Citigroup or Bank of America — will be bailed out again anytime soon. The next time the government is forced to step in, that bank’s shareholders will be wiped out, its executives and directors sent packing and its operations wound down or sold off to competitors. Most significantly, creditors and counterparties who were bailed out in the past will get only what they would have gotten from an orderly liquidation.

The rules governing this wind-down process are still being hammered out as part of the regulatory reform bill now making its way through Congress. Until that legislation is signed into law, it would have been better to keep the banks right where they were, under the protective thumb of the government that rescued them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504939.html

———-

now they have paid back the money they are free from the perusal of regulatory bodies..and they are free to pay bonuses again and they are free to fall again..when needed..

401

The official British policy for the Copenhagen conference is now out, in explicit language: Massive population genocide, on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush. The London School of Economics, the anchor of the Fabian Gordon Brown government, has produced a study for Copenhagen, released by the British organization Optimum Population Trust (OPT), calling for the reduction of world population by between three to five billion people between now and 2050. This flagrant call for mass extermination is based on the argument that the single greatest cause of global warming is over-population, and that the most “cost-effective” cure for global warming is radical population reduction.

According to a recent OPT study, the so-called global warming crisis can be solved, most cheaply, by reducing the world population by 500 million between now and 2050. Since linear population projections put world population at well-over 9 billion by that date, the proposal to cut back world population to just over 6 billion people, would mean the elimination of 3 billion people. Indeed, an OPT press release, dated March 16, 2009, titled “Earth Heading for 5 Billion Overpopulation?” reported, “Based on ecological footprint and biolgoical capacity data which have become available over the last decade, OPT estimates the world’s sustainable population currently at 5 billion and the U.K.’s at 18 million (the U.K.’s actual current population is 61 million).

“However,” the release continued, “these figures are predicated on present levels and patterns of consumption. Greener lifestyles in the U.K. could push up its sustainable population; by contrast, if the world as a whole grows richer and consumes more, this will reduce the planet’s carrying capacity. If present trends continue, by 2050, when the UN projects world population will be 9.1 billion, there will be an estimated 5 billion more people than the Earth can support.”

A later OPT report, prepared for Copenhagen, called “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost,” spelled out London’s solution: Place population reduction at the top of the agenda. OPT “called on climate change negotiators to ensure that population restraint policies are adopted by every state worldwide to combat climate change.”

The UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, gave its de facto blessing to this mass murder scheme on Nov. 18, when they featured Optimum Population Trust director Roger Martin, as a presenter of the UN’s own “State of World Population 2009″ report, a document geared to the now-ongoing Copenhagen conference on global warming. While the UN report, itself, makes the same link between global warming and population growth, it is the OPT study and its “Pop Offsets” program of targeted population reduction in the world’s poorest countries, that defines the true London agenda at Copenhagen. It is the agenda spelled out, repeatedly, by the Royal Consort Prince Philip, for decades: Reduce the world population by 80 percent, create a global feudal dictatorship, eliminating the nation-state system altogether.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12763

———-

the LSE is like the harvard of england..its filled with globalists and eugenic freaks..as we can see from the above..the linking of climate change to population is taking on a scary mix..so just how do you lower the worlds popluation by 3-5 billion???

401

Dear global warming fanatics,

Please. Stop. You’re embarrassing yourselves. Take a deep breath, and try to understand what has happened to you during the past month. You need to accept that your dreams of global domination are over. Increasingly shrill attempts to terrify the masses into ignoring Climagate are only making you look foolish. The con job you’ve been running for the last thirty years is busted forever.

I know this is difficult for you to accept. Things seemed to be going well. You’ve got the cap-and-trade bill lurking over the United States, ready to shatter an already weakened economy plagued with unemployment problems, and effectively end America’s role as a dominant industrial power. Your beliefs have been instituted in public schools as the official state religion, whose rituals and incantations are forced upon millions of school children. The wealthy royalty of popular culture is pleased to produce an endless string of movies, music, and television programming to market your beliefs. Your critics were marginalized to the point where the presidential candidate from the 2000 Democrat ticket felt comfortable referring to them as Nazis.

I can see how losing all of this cultural and political power in a few short weeks would be stunning. I hope the shock has dissipated enough for you to understand where we are now, and where we are going from here.

You aren’t going to frighten the world into reducing the human population. You’re not going to succeed in terrorizing free people into embracing totalitarianism, to fend off a phantasmal catastrophe that no democratic nation has the discipline to combat. We’re not going to politely ignore swarms of private jets and limos ferrying you to carbon-belching “climate summits,” where you draw up plans for the Western proletariat to live as primitive hunter-gatherers. We’re not going to let a pampered elitist, who once flew around the world to attend cricket practice, tell us that we need to make do without air travel and ice water.

We’ll never be foolish enough to allow a band of fanatics to use “peer review” to rule all dissenting opinion out-of-bounds, then declare themselves the proud owners of a mighty consensus. You global-warming fanatics underestimate how much you needed those tactics to gain power. You’ll never have that kind of unchallenged authority again, because we will never stop demanding the raw data, and we’ll drown you in laughter when you mutter something about deleting it by accident. We will never forget that you began with a conclusion and sought to harvest data that supported it – the exact opposite of the scientific method.

Your arrogant condescension to your critics is horribly misplaced. You have completely lost the ability to call anyone “stupid.” Your capacity for reason is the matter in question. Your status as “scientists” is on probation. It will take years of faithful adherence to the scientific method, and rigorous efforts to test and disprove your hypotheses, before you can regain the trust of thoughtful men and women. Until you have accomplished this, the attitude we expect from you is humility and contrition. You have much to answer for. The time for you to issue pompous lectures is over. The time for you to give sworn testimony may soon begin. We’re a year away from the American voter’s first opportunity to respond to the politicians who terrorized them by waving a loaded cap-and-trade bill in their faces.

We ask you to stop propagandizing our children, because it won’t work any more. We will prepare them to deal with you. Informed parents across the industrialized world will explain what Climagate means to their children, and prepare them with questions your public-education minions cannot answer. The vindicated critics you’ve been working to silence will fill the post-Climagate void with publications, and some of them will become best-sellers. You’ll always have your political allies and fellow travelers, but you’ll never have a population ignorant of climate science to push around again.

You can stop trying to make Climagate go away by ignoring it, or lying about it. That won’t work, either. Huge stories can no longer be suppressed by a handful of like-minded network executives and editors. Those glittering eyes you see in the darkness, beyond the comforting glow of the New York Times editorial board, are the massed ranks of the Internet’s Army of Davids. They are a feral mixture of blogging curiosity and search-engine memory. If you think they’re closing in around you… well, it’s not just your imagination.

One of the worst sins you must answer for is the damage you have done to real science. We have much to learn about the Earth, its ecology, and its climate. We will not enhance our ability to learn those secrets by impoverishing ourselves in fit of primitive superstition and political opportunism. Desperate people don’t do a good job of protecting the environment… it is a job suitable only to vibrant nations of industry and technology. Those of us who still cherish independent thought, and the spirit of scientific inquiry, would like to resume our studies of the universe. It’s difficult to hear the truth whispered in the tides, the breeze, and the solar wind over the hysterical jabbering of fanatics, and the angry demands of greedy politicians.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/12/a-memo-to-the-global-warming-cult/

———-

really enjoyed this article..hits the nail on the head..i would love to send this to every stooge at copenhagen

401

Concern over global warming has spawned such a highly charged and polarised political movement, that real science has become sidelined in favour of sound-bites and simple messages. The real science is not as ’settled’ as some politicians would have us believe.

There is a significant minority of climate scientists who look at the data and conclude that we are dealing with natural cycles that are peaking just as they have done on a regular basis over centuries.

These scientists are heavily outnumbered by the proliferation of computer specialists who have created their own virtual planet – people trained in maths and physics who may never have handled an ice-core, tree-ring apparatus, sediments or stalagmites and all of the proxy indicators of past temperature cycles.

In my view, the UN secretariat has marginalised their careful assessment and warnings about natural cycles in favour of alarming future projections generated by the computer model.

These real climate scientists know that the last major warm period was a 1,000 years ago when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland – their graves are still solid in the permafrost.

In between then and now, Europe and China experienced a Little Ice Age – with widespread famine.

There is so much spin that you have to read the small print of the UN reports where they admit to not understanding natural cycles and what drives them.

Behind the scenes they acknowledge cycles are at work and contribute to the warming and that it is only from the model that they derive the dominance of carbon dioxide.

But the model does not easily simulate the poorly understood cycles. Satellites do a better job and having spent three years studying the data I conclude global warming is real but at least 80 per cent natural cycle and 20 per cent human emissions.

My conclusions are supported by recent climate shifts that run counter to model predictions. From the data on cycles I could predict that after 2007, when Arctic summer ice reached a record low, it would start to recover.

In 2008, it came back by 10 per cent. The majority expected it to continue its decline to ice-free status by 2015. In 2009, it grew by another 10 per cent.

The models beloved of the majority also predicted that the high-level winds, known as the jet-stream, would shift north as the globe warmed.

The jet-stream directs wet weather from the Atlantic and in 2007 they shifted south, bringing widespread flooding to Western Europe.

I have seen a minority report in Nasa’s archives which shows that the jet-stream shifts south as the magnetic field of the sun falls and this was characteristic of the Little Ice Age.

In 2007, the sun’s magnetic field fell to an all time low and this repeated through 2008 and 2009, as did the floods.

Many solar scientists point to a link between this magnetic field and climate on Earth and when the field is low, the Earth cools.

During the low in the 17th century the Thames in London froze every winter for 50 years and summers were a washout.

Chinese and Russian scientists have better knowledge of these cycles, because the cold periods induce widespread famine – and some of them see all the signs of a new Little Ice Age.

Perhaps that’s why their governments’ sovereign funds are buying huge tracts of productive land in the tropics – for food.

You may ask – if this is real science, how can the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignore it and claim the warming is caused by carbon dioxide.

In fact, the scientists only agreed the warming is “very likely not due to known natural causes acting alone” – and that is spun by the policy-makers and the world’s media.

The not-known natural causes are subject to high-level research programmes because real scientists know they exist and are powerful. And no real climate scientist ever said natural causes are acting alone.

Up until the recent ‘climate-gate’ scandal, I accepted that the objective data could be trusted.

But it now appears scientists upon whom the UN relies were busy manipulating the data to produce a warmer globe and to eradicate what they call ‘blips’ (i.e. cycles) that they cannot explain.

To compound matters, they then sought to undermine the Freedom of Information Act and delete their records in advance of requests for the data.

The issue of causation is crucial. The poorest people are already at risk whether the globe warms or cools.

We need action on the real and immediate threats facing human support systems from unavoidable natural climate change – but less than one per cent of resources devoted to climate are spent on adaptation, the rest goes on what will be ineffective attempts to ’stop climate chaos’.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009124191343603151.html

———-

taylor makes a lot of good points in this article for al jazeera..the climate chaos

“it now appears scientists upon whom the UN relies were busy manipulating the data to produce a warmer globe and to eradicate what they call ‘blips’ (i.e. cycles) that they cannot explain”

yeah..we know that..

401

Does Russia hold hostage the future of a carbon cap-and-trade system that many experts see as a critical tool for curbing global warming gases? Improbable as it may seem, the answer appears to be yes.

That is because Russia, as a result of the collapse of much of its heavy industry in the 1990s, owns one of the world’s largest stocks of credits to offset carbon emissions.

The unearned windfall, a legacy of the Kyoto Protocol that was the world’s first attempt to come to grips with the threat of climate change, is worth several billion dollars. If abruptly sold abroad, those credits could send the price of carbon on the world’s fragile emissions markets plunging toward zero.

Without a predictable and reasonably high price for carbon emissions, most economists say, there is little prospect of setting in motion the many investments needed to shift from a carbon-intensive industrial economy to a more sustainable energy base in developed and developing countries alike.

The specter of Russia dumping its credits is just the latest challenge facing emissions trading, the expected financial backbone to any global agreement that ultimately emerges from the talks that are taking place in Copenhagen over the next two weeks. The hoard of Russian credits is a “gorilla sitting in the background” that “nobody dares to touch,” said Peter Zapfel, a senior official who helps to oversee the European Union’s four-year-old emissions trading system.

Russia could “fundamentally affect the environmental integrity of what we agree to at Copenhagen,” he said.

Industrialized countries, including the United States, are counting on trading as the most inexpensive and efficient way to help meet future emissions targets intended to limit the billions of tons of carbon pumped into the Earth’s atmosphere.

European leaders, meanwhile, have emphasized the role any trading project should play in channeling the large sums of money that poorer countries have demanded as a condition for a deal at Copenhagen.

Henry Derwent, the president of the International Emissions Trading Association, an industry group based in Geneva, predicted that an emissions market could be worth $3 trillion by the end of the next decade, compared with a current annual value of about $130 billion.

So far, however, carbon trading seems to be jinxed.

In a number of countries, powerful lobbies, often backed by the coal industry, have blocked efforts to pass legislation to cap emissions. And where such systems have come into existence, particularly in Europe, the low prices and volatility in carbon markets have spooked investors rather than encouraged them to invest in clean energy.

There are also serious doubts about the way reductions in greenhouse gases can be earned, traded and managed, reinforcing the view that carbon markets may turn out to be just another Wall Street gambit.

“I do think that carbon markets have an important role to play,” said Nicholas Stern, a professor at London School of Economics and one of the world’s leading climate economists. But “all markets have to have some kind of regulation and rules in order to function properly,” he added. “We’ve surely seen that in the last few years — and this surely is one of them.”

Carbon trading is mainly based on permits that are issued, or sold, by governments to companies that emit carbon dioxide and other gases that are believed to affect the climate. The companies are required to buy permits, or seek credits elsewhere, if they emit more than a certain quota, or cap of carbon. They can profit by selling their permits for cash if they come in below their cap.

As governments lower the overall caps, the prices for permits and credits should rise. Supporters of carbon trading say that the system is working when companies facing high-cost permits cut their output, invest in cleaner technology or buy emissions credits from a company or organization that has taken actions to reduce emissions or absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The main model for such a system already operates in the European Union. The bloc has called on all industrialized countries to have systems in place by 2015 and for rapidly emerging economies like China and India to adopt them by 2020. A similar system is being debated in the United States.

But even if a global market develops, many experts warn that carbon trading should not be relied on to deliver the scale of emissions cuts needed to keep the rise in global temperatures within a range that scientists say would prevent dangerous change. Environmental groups warn that carbon markets may end up providing only a fraction of the money some poor countries expect, largely because wealthy countries are not willing to set their caps stringently enough. Tougher caps push up demand for more offsetting in the developing world. That, the theory goes, should raise the price of carbon, so that governments selling permits would have more money to redirect to a future global climate protection fund.

Despite the myriad problems with offsets, backers say the Copenhagen meeting could ultimately replace the troubled Kyoto system with an effective trading mechanism. “If we get a strong enough commitment to reduce emissions in Copenhagen,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “then clearly carbon markets will take off.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08carbon.html

———-

very important story this one..understand that russia are sitting on a potential goldmine in carbon credits..they cold destroy the market by flooding it..the same as any commodity can when flooded..

401

Link here: http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/The-Dow-the-Future-Theory-Myth-12-6-09.pdf

———-

a lot of information and right up to date..well researched and prophetic as usual

401