| RELATED STORY|
GLENN: There is another truth that I read today and I wanted to get Noel Sheppard on. Is he with us? Noel, welcome to the program.
SHEPPARD: Hi, Glenn, how are you?
GLENN: I'm very good. I read your story on Newsbusters today and I wanted to get it from you. Tell me what's going on with Al Gore and the carbon credits.
SHEPPARD: Yeah, this is some delicious stuff. You've got a guy who is traveling the world telling everybody that we've got to have a cap and trade program and we've got to cut back on carbon dioxide and it was revealed on Wednesday, I believe, that his investment management has taken a 9.5% stake in a company called Camco Global which just so happens to be one of the largest holders of carbon credits in the entire world. Isn't that nice. And what was kind of interesting is about two months ago one of my colleagues wrote an article about this fact that Gore does indeed have a vested interest in all of these carbon credits and the expansion of carbon trading and the following day one of his representatives, one of the representatives of this investment group came out and said nothing could be further from the truth, GIM had no investments whatsoever in carbon credits and Mr. Gore has absolutely no vested interest in the expansion of carbon trading. Well, two months later we find out that's not true. Now, it may have been true at the time but it isn't true now. So what we're saying is on Wednesday we find out that GIM has a 9.5% stake in this group and on Monday Mr. Gore is praising the climate change bill in front of the Senate saying that we need to cut carbon dioxide. Well, he now is a position to definitely benefit from the United States entering into a cap and trade program, benefit financially. Definitely there's no longer any question about that and yet no news -- but from what I can tell other than --
>> Well, because you know. You know and I know, Noel, what will be said the problem -- he believes in the cause because this has already been said. I have said of course the oil companies are going to fight people like Al Gore. Of course they are. They should fight people like Al Gore. They're in business. They're fighting for their life. And everybody who has taken a dollar from oil -- and I'm still begging for those dollars. Big oil, I am for sale. I am so for sale. Anybody who's taken a dollar. In 1972, you know, an S&H green stamp, that is the thing that the media says, well, they took money from oil companies back in 1972. When you apply that to Al Gore and say he's making money on this, they claim, of course he is; he's smart.
SHEPPARD: But at the same time they're out there making the case that he's doing this because he's such a benevolent, a wonderful soul and he's trying to save the world and save the planet and they are not really focusing a lot of attention on the monetary gain. By comparison as you state, any person who is at all skeptical about this clearly has to be paid off by ExxonMobil. By the way, I haven't received my check, either.
GLENN: I don't know. I keep paying them.
SHEPPARD: That's what I'm saying. I mean, my bill -- I just $70 to ExxonMobil. They are not giving me any money.
GLENN: That sucks.
SHEPPARD: No, and really don't --
GLENN: Can you explain, because most people don't understand cap and trade. First of all they are saying it's dead in the Senate. This thing --
SHEPPARD: They are totally dead. They made a big mistake on this. What's interesting, I was speaking to Senator Inhofe on, I don't know whether it was Monday or Tuesday. Actually it may have even been Wednesday and his feeling was they never really believed this was going to go through this year. The goal was to try to set it up for 2009 when hopefully either Obama's President. Hey, McCain's position on this isn't all that different from Obama's.
GLENN: No, it's not.
SHEPPARD: They may just be looking to get George Bush out of office here.
GLENN: Look, all this was was to be able to have something in the campaign. We tried to get a carbon cap. All the candidates are for it and the Republicans wouldn't do it. It was nothing but gimmickry and dirty tricks from the Republicans. That's all they want. This thing can't be stopped next year.
SHEPPARD: They don't understand what the cap and trade program is. They don't understand that the gain here is that every industry, every company is going to be arbitrarily assigned a yearly carbon dioxide emission total in tonnage and if you exceed that total, you are either going to have to pay a tax to the government or you are going to have to buy someone else's underage from them. So as a result, let's assume I'm a company that has an overage and the companies that clearly are going to have overages are the energy companies, the utility companies, the oil companies, et cetera. Clearly these companies are going to have to charge more for their goods to compensate for the additional cost to them as a result of exceeding their carbon dioxide limit. What do they do then? Well, they're going to have to charge more for their good and services to compensate for that and all that does is create an additional tax, an additional expense on the American people.
What's interesting is Inhofe wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday where he made the case, and I think it's quite accurate, that this is an aggressive tax, meaning that the lower -- the further down the income ladder you go, the greater the percentage hit you are going to take. And what's interesting here is, you know, the Democrats are always talking about how they are the people for the poor. Well, this type of a program is going to hit -- the cap and trade program is going to hit the poor proportionately much greater than it's going to hit people who have money and much greater than it's going to hit corporations because corporations will just transfer that expense to us.
And the other thing that's kind of interesting here is I think one of the mistakes that the Democrats made here is they are constantly talking about how this type of a program really is going to hit the wallets of the oil companies. This is what we want to go after, we want to go after the oil company. But in reality since the oil company is just going to transfer that expense on to the consumer, it's really not going to hurt the oil company. It's going to hurt us. I think that they misunderstood in the midst of them, and I asked this question of Inhofe, were we somewhat benefitted by the rise in energy prices in the past couple of years, where they are now and the rise in food prices, did it make this package deal A. And the answer was definitely yes. What was interesting was the media were really not in favor of this program. A lot of the -- in favor of this bill. A lot of the editorials made it quite clear that in a rising energy price environment this is the wrong time. I mean, even the New York Times on, I think it was either Wednesday or Thursday had an article basically saying this deal was dead largely because of energy prices at this point.
GLENN: Well, I also saw a New York Times editorial, I think it may have been last week, that talked about how this was just a giant game, about how the spending in Washington was going out of control with this, that it was just a way to raise money for more spending. I couldn't believe I read it in the "New York Times," but I did.
SHEPPARD: Well, and another scary aspect here is if you can remember from Frank Herbert's Dune, the principle was he who controls the spice controls the universe. Well, he who controls carbon dioxide clearly controls the universe since we're all based upon carbon dioxide. If you are actually going to have a situation where the government now is going to set taxes on carbon dioxide emissions, this is an increase in control to the federal government that we've never seen in our country before. A control over the entire economy like nothing we've ever imagined. I think that scares people.
GLENN: I was just reading an article today that talked about this is bigger than the new deal. The structure of the government will change. The structure of the economy will change so dramatically, this one program is bigger than the entire new deal.
SHEPPARD: No, it is because of the fact that it's suddenly going to regulate an emission of carbon dioxide which, regardless of what Al Gore says, is not a pollutant. Just ask the trees. They seem to love it. I mean, this whole concept.
One of the things that's amazing to me is how the global warming alarmists have been able to convince a percentage of the population. And when I do speaking engagements on the subject, it's amazing to me the number of people that actually believe that the atmosphere acting as a greenhouse is a bad thing. No, if the atmosphere didn't act as a greenhouse, let's say like on Mars where there's a real thin atmosphere and therefore not much of a greenhouse, during the day we would get up to 200 degrees and at night we would get down to 100 degrees below zero. The greenhouse is actually a good thing.
GLENN: I know, I know. Noel, thank you very much. It's Noel Sheppard from Newsbusters.
VOICE: Tonight on frontline, gasoline prices on the rise. What's causing the unending spike in fuel costs at a time when the nation is guzzling more oil than ever? Frontline searches long and hard for the answer and despite earning wildly expensive environmental regulations, federal taxes, local taxes, state taxes, county taxes, consumption taxes, the what are you going to do about it tax, caribou trade, government taking profits from oil companies, more environmental restrictions and an overall government love of socialism, Frontline concludes that CEOs of oil companies are being too much in salary. Just cut their salaries and, of course, everything will be hunky-dory. It's all tonight. Plus, media bias. Real or just another one of those myths that John McCain was paid by the oil companies to tell you about so he could continue to fund this illegal and unjust miserable failure of a war. Tonight on Frontline.