Any topic any time. No profanity.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

SBC (eco non-profit) already making money on CARB "carbon credit" studies? Say it ain't so!

I received an announcement the Nevada County Board of Supervisors would hear a agenda item #25 regarding a joint report on "climate change" this week.  I thought it might be a weather report since it has been relatively cool and wet in the Sierra this season, but lo and behold it was not.  The email I received contained a link to the Sierra Business Council's (SBC's) webpage describing this CARB "carbon sink method" and I must say, the taxpayers will be getting hosed again.

The page contained references to how terrible and how much (30%) of the Sierra's forests were being converted from forests to residential.  It also said this;

"How you can participate? The Sierra Nevada Carbon Cooperative is designed to help landowners and land managers measure, certify, market, and sell Sierra Nevada carbon offsets from forestland conservation and management in the Northern Sierra. Sierra Business Council will do this by playing the role of project consultant, manager, and/or developer, according to CCAR’s “Gold Standard” protocols. SBC is currently seeking qualified projects on forested lands of the Sierra Nevada, which have been managed for conservation, avoided conversion to development or agriculture, or need to be afforested after deforestation."

It appears they want to assist those that already have conservation easements or land trusts (HERE) , maybe TPZ and/or  Williamson Act too,  in a additional level of avoidance of paying taxes (or competing for scarce dollars in the private sector).  But I could be wrong too, it may be simply another way to make money by a "non-profit.  I must say the CARB has opened a door to every conceivable scam a person or organization can think up.  The timber industry has been devastated by SBC type organizations over the years and now we are too believe the Sierra's are under attack to convert those forests that can't be cut into residential?  We are to believe the forests (owned by the Feds and State to the tune of millions of acres, 1/3 on Nevada County alone) are being converted?  Anyone tell SPI about this? (They will possible make a gazillion bucks  in the CARB rules?)

We now get to see the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind (man-made global warming) turned into a money making item for non-profits and crony capitalists.  If ever there was a more creative way to scam (CARB) on the taxpayers I am unaware of one.  Well, maybe Obama and Solyndra etal, but I digress.

HERE is the full link to the newest SBC endeavor.  Read it and you decided if these people should get non-profit status.  Read it and you decide if they are pro private enterprise or simply a way to jip the taxpayers.  In my view the CARB will be the final stab in the heart of free enterprise and the void of hope will be filled with scheming eco organizations who will now become consultants drowning in dollars from the hard work of the few private businesses left in our state. HERE is the services SBC offers if you have any doubt about the motivations, read the whole thing.

When Prop 23 was going Steve Frisch, the opposition leader and Executive Director of SBC,worked  against its passage.  He was traveling all over the state telling anyone who would listen to him the importance of AB32 was paramount.  Well his position won and many of us thought the opponents of the Prop 23 initiative were simply padding their future coffers as we felt they were going to benefit.   That was steadfastly denied all over the State by non-profits and I guess we were right.  Seems the SBC's are looking for consulting jobs in the scam of AB32, and CARB will soon be dishing the money out.  What is it they say in politics when you want to get to the real reason people or organizations support things?  "Follow the money".  It seems no one or no "so-called" public interest entity is immune either. Oh, and inquiring minds want to know who paid for the 48 page report SBC put together on the year 2005 document? Maybe I'll show up today. 

34 comments:

  1. Todd,

    Thanks for the report.

    I was surprised to see that SBC will be presenting climate and greenhouse emissions data from 2005 in its report today. Seven-year old data hardly seems useful.

    Equally surprising is that the report does not reflect the fabricated temperature reporting as previously reported in "Climategate."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the planet is cooling for the last 12 years or so, it seems this report is totally bogus anyway. Hopefully it will be shelved and draw dust like most of these worthless studies performed by or for the government.

      Delete
  2. PS

    How does forcing businesses to comply with a Climate Action Plan help Sierra Businesses?

    Am I misreading something? I thought that the Sierra Business Council was supposed to be HELPING local businesses and the local economy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the SBC is only interested in helping itself. Grants of tax dollars galore apparently.

      Delete
  3. The local economy depends on a clean and healthy environment. Climate change is a real threat to the long term sustainability of the Sierra. Many businesses get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a hoax and if you think implementing ,more regulations based on a hoax is OK, then you are misguided. You should have been at the meeting as I was and listen to the BS. Who paid for this fiasco?

      Delete
    2. "Climate change is a real threat to the long term sustainability of the Sierra."

      Where's the proof?
      What evidence of a "real threat" exists?
      Can you name 25 "businesses [that] get it?

      Delete
    3. Todd, Sorry for the confusion. I was replying to the 10:40am post on May 22.

      To the person(s) that believe "Climate change is a real threat to the long term sustainability of the Sierra. Many businesses get it."

      I challenge them to:

      Provide proof of the "real threat"?
      Provide 5 pieces of evidence that this is a "real threat".
      Provide the names of 25 businesses that reportedly "get it".

      Delete
    4. Got it, thanks. But I think hell will freeze over before they get the info to you.

      Delete
  4. Todd, I'm trying to figure out what actual harm SBC is doing you personally. All I can figure is that you don't like Steve F. and you want to harm his non-profit. Please help me out here.

    Also, you misspelled the word "gyp" by spelling it "jip." Not only that, "gyp" is a racial slur, referring to a not-true stereotype that Gypsies always steal. Just thought you should know, since my goal in life is to help you lift yourself up from the status of Fossilized Cretin. You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Out of curiosity, I looked up Gyp in my Webster's unabridged dictionary (2nd edition copyright 1979)

      gyp (present participle) "to swindle; cheat." Also spelled gip. [Slang]

      No mention of racial slur, there so I looked in my Webster's "Encyclopedic" dictionary of the English Language copyright 1969. Same definition and no mention of racial slur.

      Not sure of how old you are, but for those of us over 62 Gyp, gip is a valid word for swindling and cheating.

      To quote Hamlet "Methinks thou doth protest too much" over a word and over a typo at that.

      Delete
    2. PS

      In Todd's 6th paragraph above, it seems fair enough that Todd provides the facts (the link) and asks readers to "Read it and you decide if they are pro private enterprise or simply a way to jip [or Gyp] the taxpayers. "

      Delete
  5. MichaelA, I think I am much more advanced socially than you could ever be, but that is a different thread. Regarding SBC. It is a typical eco nut organization whose sole life is to spend hard earned tax money swiped from our middle class folks. I have dealt with organizations like them for thirty five years. Regarding the word jip or gyp. I don't give a rat's ass if you think it is some racial slur. You libs are always on guard for slights and spell check and have zip between the ears about real life. There, now, you have been scolded and taken to the woodshed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Todd,

    I have some comments on the BOS and SBC Presentation Here: http://wp.me/p1NUuI-LX

    Russ

    ReplyDelete
  7. Russ I read your blog comments. They are asking for more info from such a esteemed organization as SBC. Do you think they will supply them?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well Todd, if you are not willing to cut the Gypsies a break, let's take a few steps back.

    Let's start with how to make the Perfect Sandwich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGkQiDi3ngo&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  9. Todd--Thanks for exposing SBC's financial conflict of interest in profiting from the sale of made-out-of-thin-air carbon credits. This is truly a travesty built on a hoax that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the environment (except to use it as bait) and everything to do with control, as in tyranny. The tyrants need their useful idiots, and SBC is happy to volunteer and follow the money, as you point out.
    Here is more good information on SBC. This is Part 5 of a lecture in Amador County by Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates on Globalism vs. America. The SBC part starts at 3:50, although the entire 13-minute segment is worth listening to. Part 5: http://youtu.be/SX2-AVniAgM
    You can hear Shaw's entire speech from the beginning here and learn a lot about this subject (8 parts): http://goldcountrypatriots.com/education/michael-shaw-globalism-vs-america/
    --Judi

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Judi. You did a fine presentation at the BOS meeting and I noticed the Union reporters story was the typical press review. Why the press tries to make anyone who points out the paw and the treaty as nutty us beyonfd me. It really is about money. The treaty strives to send our first world money to the third world as reparations for "colonial" behavior. Eben though America never had colonies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Seems to me that the SBC is simply trying to gather data for use in the future, and organize its rural constituents in trying to proactively work with AB32. Seems like a better approach than putting one's head in the sand wishing it would go away. If someone doesn't like aspects of AB32 as they relate to rural communities, then fine, they and/or their organizations should be raising those concerns in working with the State. But AB32 isn't going away. Being proactive is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is just more rent seeking by the horribly misnamed Sierra Business Council. Why is anyone surprised?

    If you think back to the Prop 23 campaign, Frisch & Co. hid from the title of AB32, The Global Warming Solutions Act. It was all about kids in California with asthma, and evil Texas oil companies wanting to pollute our air. Even the Giants winning the World Series. Not CO2.

    Now we're back to CO2. When the people figure out that sky high energy prices are not just a temporary problem but the actual plan for reducing CO2 emissions in California, they will rebel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Those Texas oil companies flooded the airwaves and print media with fear tactics about "sky high" costs and massive job losses back in 2010. End result? The voters solidity backed AB32. CA residents understand the costs and benefits of moving away from fossil fuels. Time to adapt.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, you can't rewrite history about the oil companies. They spent substantially less in donations that than this list of those top spenders against the initiative.

    Thomas Steyer, $5,049,000
    National Wildlife Federation, $3,000,000
    John & Ann Doerr, $2,100,000
    The League of Conservation Voters, $1,250,000
    Vinod Khosla, $1,037,267
    James Cameron, $1,000,000
    ClimateWorks Foundation, $900,000
    Sierra Club, $835,890
    The Nature Conservancy, $800,000
    Bill Gates, $700,000
    Green Tech Action Fund, $500,000
    Pacific Gas & Electric, $500,000

    Now, if your business was going to be attacked and trashed by a regulation or agency and you had a chance to influence the people voting wirh info so you can survive, I would suspect you would spend whatever it takes to survive. Besides, the First Amendment says money is speech.

    Who is the top giver in the above list? You think one person matching the money spent by one corporation (Valero) is a red flag? Who is that fellow? Why would he spend over 5 million?

    Here is a link to Mr. Steyer, he is an assett manager. Why do you think he gave five million bucks?

    http://www.faralloncapital.com/farallon/principals_thomas_steyer.htm

    ReplyDelete
  15. As long as Citizens United stands, wealthy progressives must (and will) stand up to these giant KarlRovian PACS and Corporations. Your list doesn't do one thing to refute the fact that most CA residents fully understand and support AB32.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think the list has Bill Gates and others who had a vested in interest in AB32 passing. You are simply wrong but when a progressive rants against free speech, nothing is sacred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good for Bill Gates and the other capitalist entrepeneurs who will make money from the new world of energy and AB32 in particular. There is nothing more American than innovation and leading the world (AB32).

      Delete
    2. So you have changed the subject I see. Gates and the others on the No side are just peachy to you even though they benefit, while the companies on the YES side are bad but the reason they give is the same. Liberalism is a mental disorder is true!

      Delete
    3. Nope. Innovating away from fossil fuels is what we are looking for. Oil companies are not innovators, and they are not taking the world in any kind of better direction.

      Delete
    4. I bet you drive a car and use electricity don't you? Or do you drive a coal fired auto? How about all the plastic containers and do-dads in your abode. I could care less [f the oil companies are innovators or not. They supply a product that is necessary for the survival and well being of all people. You true believers in some "post oil" world are just too funny.

      Delete
  17. OK great, you stick to increasingly costly oil and gasoline for your gas guzzler. I'm considering all sorts of alternatives for my next vehicle. And the rest of CA will continue to move away from dependence on fossil fuels, onto a more sustainable, cleaner path for the future. AB32 remains.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grammatically acceptable, silly claims about energy. Sounds Frischy. J'accuse, you wannabe A. Nony. Mouse.

      AB32 will go away once "Global Warming" becomes the cheap laugh for Leno and Letterman. Maybe in the middle of next winter.

      Delete
    2. It'll just go away ha? As in poof?

      ...don't think so...

      Delete
  18. Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you
    wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to
    drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this
    is great blog. A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.
    My weblog ; Reading emails to earn money

    ReplyDelete
  19. I like the helpful info you provide in your articles.

    I'll bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently. I'm quite certain I will learn a lot of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!
    My site Profit Site Online

    ReplyDelete

Real name thank you.