Tradeable Emission Permits
I keep thinking that I’m about to unveil the final layer of the onion. But… the onion keeps proving me wrong. On this occasion, it relates to the history of carbon trading. How did it actually come to pass, and who did the heavy lifting?
There are two ways to attack the problem. The first is to start from the beginning and move forwards in time. The alternate is doing the reverse. But both require a set timeline which is reasonably easy to establish, because while the William D Nordhaud/IIASA study from 1975 on the pricing of carbon1, titled ‘CAN WE CONTROL CARBON DIOXIDE?‘ marks the beginning, the end is clearly marked by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol2.
And the 1975 report isn’t terribly exciting, to be honest. But it’s pretty obvious what it sets out to do, and the document is broadly recognised for its efforts.
And as for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, its Article 17 is similarly clear -
‘The Parties included in Annex B may participate in emissions trading for the purposes of fulfilling their commitments under Article 3.‘
And we can then go back to Article 3 to establish exactly what this entails -
‘The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts,‘
By carefully wrapping this up as ‘individually or jointly’, what this language does is open up for s transfer mechanism, which article 17 above then goes on to detail - emissions trading. But that’s not all the article details -
‘The greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner‘
Emitters are titled ‘sources’, and removers are ‘sinks’. And as the objective on a per-nation basis is to hit the nation’s assigned emission rights, which means nations who are net positive can sell their unused rights to those nations net negative. This process is titled ‘offsetting’, and the process of ‘offsetting’ is said trading outlined in Article 17. And before we move on, emission rights in this context are regularly titled carbon credits.
The reason why I outline the process above, is because it allows me to connect the next obvious document in official capacity - the UNFCCC framework treaty3. Because although it does not state carbon credits, offsetting, or emission trading directly, it does outline carbon sinks and carbon sources - the two parties in the transaction.
Of primary importance is Article 4, which outlines the commitments of the parties, and these broadly outline three fields; the objectives, establishing an approach, and detailing financial flows.
And the objectives - once you eliminate the padded, obfuscated wording - boil down to establishment of inventories of greenhouse gas sinks and sources, the conservation of carbon sinks, and the importance of integrated geographical management. To aid this objective, surveillance is required, calling for free exchange of information, and education.
The approach broadly outlines methods of limiting emissions allowing a joint return to 1990 levels of net emissions through conservation of carbon sinks (again), the calculations thereof through the best available (quack) science (as outsourced to the IPCC), and the development of relevant economic instruments to achieve this objective.
And finally, the financial flows outlines that developed nations should pay for this transformation. I could add more in this regard, but won’t. It should be blindingly obvious exactly who they presently try to rob blind, and to what extent.
What I'm getting at here is that beyond reductions, already in their very founding document, the focus was on offsetting emissions. They might not have stated this outright, but the mention of sinks vs sources, and the development of relevant economic instruments make this crystal clear. And surveillance at this stage was largely up and running, an initiative which kicked off in 1972 with UNEP and GEMS.
Finally, the calls for conservation of carbon sinks relate to 'biodiversity restoration' in general - and that's where the Convention on Biological Diversity enters the stage - which just like the UNFCCC also was established at the Earth Summit in Rio, 1992.
The integrated management also deserve a mention. That's detailed by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Specifically, this is the 'Landscape Approach', and the new framework the 'Ecosystem Approach', aka feudalism.
And the education drive was discussed already in 1975, with the release of the Belgrade Charter4 outlining 'life-long education', and a 'global ethic' relating to the world's environment - all to be sold through MSM propaganda, and even including ‘promotion of alternate lifestyles’. Which - believe you me - if you have kids in schoold you now experience… if you pay attention.
So in other words, our genuine search relates to the timeline of 1975-1992. And I previously detailed the timeline up to and including 1979, relating to the absurdity that is the ‘carbon consensus’ -
And that is relevant, because that ‘consensus’ established the political course in 1979 - disregarding first Bert Bolin in front of the US Senate in 1976 stating that they knew just about nothing, followed by the IIASA making the same admission in 1978 on the topic of the carbon cycle. However, it was around this time that the first offsetting scheme was outlined in legislation through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 19775 -
‘These amendments also included the adoption of an offset trading policy originally applied to Los Angeles in 1974 that enables new sources to offset their emissions by purchasing extra reductions from existing sources‘
… though technically not entirely relevant, I include the following because it outlines how incredibly fake all of this is. In 1980, the Conservation Foundation - coincidentally featuring ‘Spaceship Earth’ Barbara Ward as a trustee - released a book, titled ‘Air Pollution Offsets - Trading, Selling, and Banking‘… with Reilly as president; the chap who’d been senior member of the Council on Environmental Quality under Russell Train.
… but I already covered the Conservation Foundation over here, so enough of that -
… although the Council on Environmental Quality really does deserve a mention -
Then comes a double-Reagan whammy; first in 1982, when the EPA6 released the following, inluding wording on credits, offsetting, and even banking. Incidentally, you won’t believe who ran the EPA at the time.
Here she is. The acting head of the head at the time was -
'Between 1981 and 1983, while known as Anne M. Gorsuch, she served under President Ronald Reagan ... Her son is sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Neil Gorsuch'
And in 1986, the EPA updated the policy statement7. Once again, you won’t believe who ran the EPA in 1986 (no, not Anne).
… that would be Lee M Thomas8. Former Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta board member.
… not forgetting about his link to Rhodes Schlar Speth’s World Resouce Institute, another Rockefeller connected outfit -
But 1985 further saw this stellar work by Tietenberg; ‘Emissions Trading’. And if there’s one name you see a lot in this context, it’s him. And the book is released by Resources for the Future, Inc - another Ford/Rockefeller connected enterprise.
… a fact easily demonstrated via first this 1995 UNCTAD book on ‘Controlling Carbon Dioxide Emissions’, of which he’s a co-author. I won’t attach, but at the same time, definitely won’t let you know that Anna’s Archives might have a copy.
… and in 1992, Tietenberg also contributed to this OECD book on ‘Climate Change - Designing a Tradeable Permit System’.
Both of those documents refer back to the most elusive UN document in history - the one document, I have entirely failed to track down; the 1992 UNCTAD ‘Combating global warming : study on a global system of tradeable carbon emission entitlements‘9 - penned by Scott Barrett, Michael Grubb, Kjell Roland, Adam Rose, Richard L. Sandor, Thomas H. Tietenberg.
But let’s head back to the OECD study; the two authors which feature in that and the "UNCTAD/RDP/DFP/1"- impossible to track down - is Tietenberg, and Michael Grubb, who just by coincidence happens to be a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. There’s that Rockefeller connection again, although this time through Cecil Rhodes.
But there’s another historical point of interest, which is brought up through 'Costs and Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions'10 of Nov 15, 1991. The Montreal Protocol11 of 1987.
… and sure, you’ll argue that the Montreal Protocol technically isn’t about carbon dioxide, which of course is true. It does however contain language relating to offsetting.
What the Montreal Protocol relates to, of course, is the claimed Ozone Hole12, which was discovered in 1985 - the very same year Tietenberg released his book above. And excuse me for my skepticism, but there’s just so many times I can stand being lied to by those, claiming to represent the ‘best available science’. That really is the one thing about trust - once lost… F YOU.
And for the younger audience out there, the Ozone Hole really was paraded about like a major deal. I haven’t actually looked into the veracity of it all, but have heard it’s somewhat controversial. I can however tell you it led to much soapboxing by Hollywood hypocrites. Here’s one given event from 1990 which I advice you to ignore.
It’s at this stage a cynic might suggest that the Ozone Hole was manufactured or massively exaggerated, used as a ploy to shove through early offseting into legislation, creating an opening for the future full language policy - which arrived, essentially, in 1992 though 1997. Which means that we, in terms of timeline, operate in 1987-1992,
However, let’s work our way backwards from 1992. First, we have David Pearce - who wrote the very influential book on the Circular Economy/Sustainable Development titled ‘The Circular Economy: What, Why, How and Where‘13, which drags in Kenneth Boulding’s 1966 paper on the Spaceship Earth metaphor. This one, however, was an input paper for the Rio Summit in 1992, titled ‘Economic Valuation and the Natural World‘14, and it features green taxes, tradeable permit systems, and Spaceship Earth.
Next up - a World Bank report from 1992 with input from Tietenberg; ‘Development and the Environment’15.
Then we have an USAID 1992 book, with a Tietenberg interview. Frankly, he comes across as somewhat of a Marxist, speaking of ‘intergenerational rights’, but also revealing that he’s a senior fellow of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
… incidentally, did you know that Rockefeller funded Woods Hole16 early on? Chalk up another coincidence.
In February, 1992 - nearly 4 months before the Rio Summit - the eighth session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development commenced17. And out of the 20 papers released, SIX1819202122 contain language relating to permissions trading.
And if you only counted five above, that’s correct. There are too many documents for me to cover; I will only cover a single one - the earliest23. And this… informal encounter… took place in Oslo, and concluded on March 1, 1991. And - look - it’s more of the same. But it’s there. It’s absolutely all there. But you recall what I said in the opening line, that more layers of the onion appear when you least expect it? Well, Jan Suurland opens up yet another line of inquiry.
In the event you don’t know who Jan is, don’t worry. I had no idea either. And he wasn’t trivial to track down, either. He passed away a few years back, but he for a number of years worked in the Dutch embassies in Canada and the United Stated on all matters of sustainability. No, really. When you start investigating, you find early 90’es links to the Ecosystem Approach, environmental financial accounting (which is all fraud), the International Institute for Environment and Development (ie, Barbara Ward; ‘Spaceship Earth’), and - interestingly - debt swaps, the Wilderness Society, sustainability indicators, all three of which I’m yet to cover… unlike that feudal ‘approach’.
But… we still have a few years clouded in mystery; 1988-1990. And to open those up, we need to return to… 1995!
Specifically, what we find in ‘E/CN.17/1995/8‘24 goes a long way to explain why this document has been scrubbed off the internet. Quoting item 230 in full -
‘In 1992, the UNCTAD secretariat issued a report on how to design a global system of tradeable carbon emission entitlement (UNCTAD/RDP/DFP/1). It was argued that tradeable permits were both an efficient means of controlling man-made carbon dioxide emissions at minimum cost and an effective mechanism for transferring resources to developing countries and countries with economies in transition to help them contribute to the international effort to abate emissions of greenhouse gases. Since the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and its entry into force in March 1994, new studies on this subject by the UNCTAD secretariat have been completed. These studies focus on the themes of feasibility and implementation of a tradeable CO, permit scheme at the international level.‘
What this states is that the missing document - from 1992 - details that the carbon credit trading system rollout will be global, it will be used to control emissions, and it will be used as a massive transfer of funding from the North to the South (ie, developed to developing world).
Funny - I somewhat recall politicians calling this ‘conspiracy theory’! As for item 231 -
‘Among the policy options available for coping with climate change, a tradeable permit system is considered by many to be a cost-effective way of limiting CO, emissions. The Response Strategies Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has discussed various systems of tradeable emission rights. Those discussions raised concerns about global equity, which may be a serious impediment to the application of a tradeable permit system at the global level.‘
We will return to that working group in a minute - count on it. Item 232 continus -
‘An international system of tradeable CO, permits need not begin with a comprehensive arrangement for trading in all greenhouse gases. Neither might it be necessary to negotiate from the outset a binding international agreement on emission targets and the allocation of emission allowances among all parties to the agreement. Rather, commitments by a number of countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions might provide the basis for the adoption of an evolutionary process where it would be possible to begin with a simple scheme (e.g., a CO, emissions trading scheme among a small number of countries) and evolve gradually towards a more complete system.‘
And that… is really rather exemplary of how these people work. They identify a weak spot in the system, and as soon as you’ve accepted some false premise, they exploit it and go large on the exploitation. What it states is that they will initialy push through a carbon dioxide trading system in a few nations, and progressively expand to include every claimed pollutant, and into every nation.
The only - only - rational reply is outright rejection in the first place. And to wrap up this document, let’s quickly go through items 234 and 235 -
‘It is appropriate to inquire into the minimum number of signatories and their assigned allowances that would be required for an efficient market. Indeed, a market must be broad enough to ultimately attract other signatories. There is no scientific formula for determining these numbers. The lesson from successful markets, ranging from Eurodollars to wheat, suggests a minimum of different trading blocs emitting altogether at least 20 per cent of the world's output. Thus, an emissions permit market between the United States, the European Union and Japan (accounting for roughly 40 per cent of world Co,) based on the stabilization of CO, emissions at 1990 levels in the year 2000, could possibly generate more than US$ 8 billion annually at US$ 10 per ton.‘
Already in 1992, they speculate how many nations this would need to involve at launch. They even have a ballpark figure in terms of income. They’ve been rigorous, I will give them that. As we saw in the SCOPE 3 report, these people really are bright (but that does not mean we’re not every bit capable of matching them).
Item 235 continues -
‘Pilot schemes may be now the key to further progress. A tradeable CO permits pilot scheme could be launched among the major emitters. Participants in the scheme would develop and test certain mechanisms that would be essential to the long-term viability of a fully-fledged system of tradeable permits such as certification, monitoring, trading, clearing, accounting, and dispute resolution.‘
Monitoring (surveillance) obviously relates to GEMS, and SCOPE above. Settlement schemes were heftily debated pre-Brexit, then suddenly dropped - most visibly through the Trans-Pacific-Partnership. As for the certification, trading, clearing, and accounting… well, you know… the accountancy firms and JP Morgan/Goldman need to make money too, you know.
Item 239 adds ‘what should be the lifetime of carbon credits’, which indeed is a good question. The answer to that probably is… whatever will make those companies the highest profits off your back. Because this will be used to rip you off.
So, you see - although that report was from 1995, the information contained was that of the missing 1992 report. But even more importantly - it gave just a snippet of information, sufficient to pinpoint the next bit of valuable insight. The ‘Policymakers Summary of the Response Strategies Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change‘25. Ie, IPCC RSWG3. And - oh boy - are we inching closer to the fire.
First off - this document is the result of meetings held up until June, 1990. In fact, the second meet in June, 1990 is not reflected by this document. And yeah - it discusses technology transfer, sustainable development, and transferable permits.
And the next few pages should drive it home - even if you play the most intentionally obtuse Fabian Socialist. This is definitely relevant. But this is also just an executive summary, and I generally don’t tend to like those on their own. So on the search goes.
And the full report of Working Group 3 can be located here26. To say this delivers is somewhat short of the mark. So I wil dedicate a little more space in this regard.
First off - IPCC, ‘Climate Change’. Predictable burning in lakes of fire, unless we pray at the holy altar of Al Gore. We’ve been here before, that much is inconveniently true.
The chapter of particular interest is number 9, penned by J Tilley (Australia), and J Gilbert (New Zealand). More on these chaps in a bit.
… and the part of the movie you fast-forward to is 9.5.3 -
‘An emission permit system is based on the concept that emission entitlements (like coupons) or rights to pollute are provided to emitting sources (which can be as large as countries), subject to an overall limit on total emissions. The sum of entitlements is equal to an emissions budget set at the national level through regulation or at the international level through international agreements. A "tradeable" emission permit system extends the emission permit system by allowing the permit holders to trade or sell their entitlements to another party on the open market. It is supplementary to a regulatory programme in that it operates within overall limits on emissions of the greenhouse gas.‘
Now, if you’ll excuse me; I’m married, so it’s rare that I’m allowed to declare that I’m right - but what is described above is the creation of a synthetic scarcity on the rights to emit carbon dioxide. I described exactly this dynamic over here -
It continues -
‘However, at the international level, a tradeable permit system might operate like international share, currency, or commodity markets‘
Yeah, that’s definitely what we see unfolding in front of our very eyes;
‘At either the national or international level, a further variation of this system is to allow emission entitlements to be granted for the creation of sinks. An international policy regime that focuses on global climate objectives, rather than the means by which they are achieved, would treat sink creation and emissions reduction as one-for-one substitutes.‘
… and that’s where the Convention on Biological Diversity comes into play. I also described that dynamic in the article above. My central thesis is, essentially, proven through a document… written more than 30 years ago!
It’s incredible how they keep these things under wraps, no?
The document carries on, outlining surveillance, international bodies, initial allocation strategies, and so forth. None of those genuinely matter, however. Because what is established here is that already in 1990, they knew exactly which steps to take next, evidenced by alternate solutions not really being given the same level of consideration… probably because Rockefeller-sponsored outfits had already paved the path of the IPCC Working Groups in advance.
So there’s really only one question left to ask. Those authors - who are they? Well, it’s actually an interesting question, because neither were trivial to track down… almost as though they were wiped from the internet. Regardless, ‘J Tilley’ is John Tilley, who at the time worked at the Paris-based International Energy Agency27, later to join the Australian Institute of Petroleum, which would appear a tad… odd, really. Until you snap out of it and realise how corrupt it all is.
‘J Gilbert’ on the other hand… well, he was somewhat harder. Eventually, I tracked him down to this 1982 book; ‘Environmental Planning Guidelines for Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling‘, which I can confirm is a page turner. I practically lept through to the end.
But wait. The East-West Center? The East-West Environment and Policy Institute? Who the hell are those organisations?
And you know how I started off, trying to close off this one topic? Well, in the process of doing so, I opened not just the two listed above, but also debt swaps, the Wilderness Society, and sustainability indicators.
I frankly don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
This is amazing work (and very fun to read too!) - thanks for putting it together. Do you know of the work of Cory Morningstar? If not I think you will enjoy it (you can look it up under wrongkindofgreen.org)
https://www.gleif.org/en
GLEIF – Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation
We enable smarter, less costly and more reliable decisions about who to do business with