|
 At 6:45 a.m. on May 19, 2009, I looked out the window to see frost on all the surrounding rooftops — not just the ones in the valley where cold air collects but even on my own rooftop. As I jogged uphill toward Main Street, I saw that each still-shaded rooftop was covered with frost. A man from 6 miles away said they'd had heavy frost there too so it was not just a localized phenomenon.
Now the instructions on seed packets sold around here say to plant on April 1 after danger of frost is past, and the latest frost I have ever seen in my 60 odd years in the area occurred on April 29, 2006. I was so impressed by that frost that I wrote that date in the frost on my windshield and took pictures. But this year frost came almost 3 weeks later than that. Such a phenomenon was always splashed all over the papers when I was a kid. But I knew that wasn't going to happen this time.
At the gas station on Main Street, I told the two clerks to look out and see something they’d never seen before — frost on May 19. One of them, a gentleman in his 60s, admitted he'd never seen this. I repeated my prediction that it would not be reported in the papers. And indeed, the next day it was conspicuously absent.
Asking everyone I met along my route if they'd ever seen frost this late, none had. One couple in their 70s said they’d lived in the mountains 100 miles north of here and had never seen a frost this late.
When I was growing up, older folks used to warn against talking politics and religion. They always said the safest topic was the weather. But as I went around town talking to people about the frost, I noticed some felt uncomfortable and remained sullenly silent when I mentioned global warming in the context of this unseasonable frost. They sensed I was touching on a taboo. It was sinister and ominous to note that the weather, the last "safe" topic was now off-limits for many.
You see, the weather now conceals secrets that the government doesn't want you to talk about. And the reason is carbon credits, the biggest income potential ever for greedy government.
I once checked with a few carbon offset brokers and learned that carbon offsets can be purchased from companies, for example, that own stands of trees.
We’re to take it on faith that money paid for carbon offsets will be invested to maintain these stands and to guarantee that no one can wantonly destroy them.
But how does the offset investor know the land and trees even exists? Or that the owner wasn't going to keep the trees anyway, without the investment?
How do you know the stand won't be logged? After all, timber companies maintain stands of timber that eliminate CO2.
Obviously, if there is no land or trees, then it's a scam. If the owner wasn't planning on cutting down the trees anyway, you’ve been scammed. If the land is occasionally logged, then even if seedlings are to be planted as replacements, you've been scammed, because the owner is already making money from the lumber so he's double dipping thanks to your naïveté and your government's duplicity.
But suppose the government guaranteed the existence of the trees and land and that there would be no logging. And suppose they guarantee that without your money, the trees would disappear. Of course, just as Fannie and Freddie carried an implicit guarantee of solvency, the government also implicitly guarantees carbon offsets. Will the carbon offsets be more reliable than Fannie and Freddie?
Let's see. Is your money being invested in watering trees? No. The roots of hardwoods go down as far as the underground streams. Insecticide perhaps? Trees in the wild state require none. Besides, insecticides pollute the environment worse than the CO2 you're offsetting, so that's moot.
But what government do you trust to guarantee the trees will stay? Carbon credits are backed by stands as far away as New Zealand. Do you trust that government? I don't. I just got done reading a pamphlet by John Christian entitled Communist Councils in New Zealand which may be of interest.
Suppose the stands are in California. Do you trust the irresponsible bankrupt government of California? Suppose the stands are "backed up" by the federal government — the same government that took trillions of your children's dollars it now can't account for. You see the problem.
Carbon credits are based on a faith, with no spirituality. There's no discussion allowed about the issues surrounding them, such as whether or not global warming exists in the first place, whether it's caused by humans, whether carbon credits will change the weather, etc. Believe or be branded a heretic by the State-controlled Church of the Environmental Apocalypse.
Carbon offsets, for the gullible, will likely turn out to be nothing but hot air, and the proverbial scam. But billions — maybe trillions — will no doubt be squandered on this hocus-pocus. Unless, that is, someone wakes up and sees the next late May frost and dares to talk about it.
Imagine being free to talk about the weather in America!
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
