NEWARK - That Ironbound contest between Councilman Augusto "Augie" Amador and optometrist Peter Pantoliano has gotten ugly early, with both men pummeling each other on petition pick-up day and the latter apologizing for what he says was a "horrible mistake."
The Sunday Times reports:
The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors.
SGS UK had its accreditation suspended last week after it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the carbon-trading scheme, or even that they were qualified to do so.
As we have noted before, among the many reasons carbon cap and trading is destined to fail is because auditing carbon emissions reductions accurately enough to support a carbon credit “market” is simply impossible. New Zealand Climate Science Coalition chairman Bryan Leyland explains:
So, to my knowledge, carbon trading is the only commodity trading where it is impossible to establish with reasonable accuracy how much is being bought and sold, where the commodity that is traded is invisible and can perform no useful purpose for the purchaser, and where both parties benefit if the quantities traded have been exaggerated. … It is, therefore, an open invitation to fraud and that is exactly what is happening all over the world.
In fact this is the exact same reason the economists who originally came up with the idea of cap and trade as a way to combat pollution believe that cap and trade is a terrible fit for carbon:
The first is that carbon emissions are a global problem with myriad sources. Cap-and-trade, he says, is better suited for discrete, local pollution problems. “It is not clear to me how you would enforce a permit system internationally,” he says. “There are no institutions right now that have that power.”