To demonstrate the fraudulence of the carbon offset market, one need only request quotes from various carbon offset sellers. The price for offseting a flight from London to Toronto and back?


* $85: from Climate Care (UK), which says 6 tons of CO2 must be offset.

* $60: Carbon Neutral (UK), which says 4.3 tons of CO2 must be offset.

* $195: Climate Friendly (Australia) asserts that 11.63 tons of CO2 must be offset.

* $180: Green Seat (Netherlands) says 8.68 tons of CO2 must be offset.


Put simply: they're all basically making it up as they go along.


Whether you believe the world is warming or cooling, there is no arguing [url=http://article.nation...

To demonstrate the fraudulence of the carbon offset market, one need only request quotes from various carbon offset sellers. The price for offseting a flight from London to Toronto and back?


* $85: from Climate Care (UK), which says 6 tons of CO2 must be offset.

* $60: Carbon Neutral (UK), which says 4.3 tons of CO2 must be offset.

* $195: Climate Friendly (Australia) asserts that 11.63 tons of CO2 must be offset.

* $180: Green Seat (Netherlands) says 8.68 tons of CO2 must be offset.


Put simply: they're all basically making it up as they go along.


Whether you believe the world is warming or cooling, there is no arguing Democrats want more expensive energy for American citizens.

All that said, the real problem — and the reason Pelosi really does deserve blame — is that Democrats’ political goal of reducing carbon emissions continues to trump their populist rhetoric on gasoline prices. The two stances are impossible to reconcile. Try as they might to blame oil companies for the pain Americans feel at the pump, the Democrats want higher prices for gasoline — and for all forms of energy that emit carbon. Economic barriers against CO2 emissions are a requirement for environmental progress in the Democrats’ view, and this is the entire purpose of the carbon cap-and-trade system they will put before the House this summer — to create economic disincentives for emitting CO2.

It all comes back to carbon offsets, the "global warming" scam promoted by the UN's IPCC. And now, a group of scientists has formally petitioned the IPCC, asking that they cease and desist marketing the message that CO2 emissions relate to warming temperatures. The scientists go on to renounce the unintended consequences of the UN's position: that the policy of burning food (to produce biofuel) has driven food prices sharply higher and is causing hunger and deforestation in countries around the world (esp...

It all comes back to carbon offsets, the "global warming" scam promoted by the UN's IPCC. And now, a group of scientists has formally petitioned the IPCC, asking that they cease and desist marketing the message that CO2 emissions relate to warming temperatures. The scientists go on to renounce the unintended consequences of the UN's position: that the policy of burning food (to produce biofuel) has driven food prices sharply higher and is causing hunger and deforestation in countries around the world (especially the poorer countries.)

The net result? In Haiti, for example, citizens have been forced to eat mud patties consisting of dirt, oil and sugar.

Furthermore, scientists are now coming to the conclusion that "green" fuels can't replace oil anytime soon.

* * *

The hunger and wild fluctuations in oil prices are certain to continue until we come to grips with reality. That is, fossil fuels are required for the world to survive the next several decades. The transition to green technologies will take significant time and will only occur because of the free market, not government mandate.

Unless we wish to see mass starvation and economic ruin, we must demand that American companies be permitted to take advantage of our immense storehouse of energy. Anything else is economic suicide. Contact your representative today and tell them to stop driving us to ruin.