The first thing people have to know is there is absolutely zero scientific evidence  that CO2, cars, oil, coal, natural gas, methane, or anything else that is being blamed for the climate has any direct relationship with temperatures, sea levels, or storm activity. 

Temperatures have risen and fallen the last 160 years, just as they have for billions of years, while we have used all of these products. 

Droughts come and go today, as they have throughout history.  The reason there are so many deserts is long droughts throughout history. 

Floods and storms come and go, as they always have.  The Earth is 70% covered by water because of huge periods of precipitation, unaffected by humans.

So, essentially, reducing carbon is a government policy created in search of a solution when the problem hasn’t been identified. 

Carbon credits were created as a means for billionaires, governments, and companies to pretend they were doing something to control the climate and to offset their huge carbon footprint.  The market has moved around billions of dollars as a fictional solution.  It is essentially fraud. 

When a billionaire like Bloomberg or Bill Gates purchases carbon credits or plants trees, it does nothing to reduce the carbon emitted by their jets and mansions.  The carbon is exactly the same. 

When GM, Ford, and Chrysler purchase credits from Tesla to pretend they comply with government emission rules, it does not reduce the carbon from big trucks, but it makes Musk richer. 

Even though it is obvious that carbon credits are worthless, the WSJ, economists, bureaucrats, and other green pushers are still pretending they do something. 

Leading economists and policymakers push for higher integrity in carbon markets

Carbon credits have been beset by uncertainty and scandal in recent years and, as a result, sales slumped dramatically in 2023 and 2024. “In the voluntary carbon market specifically, for years you’ve had an oversupply of credits that are perceived as low quality, meaning they never actually led to any carbon avoidance or removal,” said Kyle Harrison, head of sustainability research at BloombergNEF.

[snip]

In response to the concerns about quality, supporters of the market have launched myriad ratings firms, standards-setting bodies and auditors in the hope of rebuilding trust with corporate and government customers.

And the experts know that it is all a fraud.

Is it true that 90% of carbon credits are worthless?

A nine-month joint investigation by journalists from The Guardian, Die Welt and SourceMaterial has shown that 90% of the REDD+ carbon credits from the world’s largest offsetting standard actually have no positive impact on the climate.

Kamala should be asked for scientific data to justify all the kickbacks to green pushers.  Her answer would be: I was brought up in a middle-class neighborhood, and I want to give people opportunities.  We have to turn the page from the past. 

Her answer would be as worthless as carbon credits themselves.

Pixabay, Pixabay License.

Image: max_gloin via Pixabay, Pixabay License.