Have you noticed that those concerned about "global warming" and man's contribution to it, no longer use that term; now we are striving for "climate control". The reason for the Orwellian word change is that evidence is mounting that any current warming is not due to what you and I do, it happens, if at all, because of what we euphemistically call "mother nature" does. Why the sudden change; because the objective of leftists masquerading as environmentalists is to bring down high living capitalistic societies.
And "climate control" can be very profitable for some; just consider the so-called "cap and trade" system advocated by "climate control" advocates. Some Northeastern states, like Massachusetts, are going to conduct an auction of greenhouse gas emissions permits, and all presidential contenders also want to implement the cap and trade system on a national level. The states that want to do this are members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and will raise hundreds of millions of dollars annually by requiring greenhouse gas emitters to purchase emission credits; businesses that don't "pollute" will also reap millions of dollars by selling their "credits" to others such as by state live auctions held to sell greenhouse gas emission permits. But imagine how much more money such auctions could raise if they were conducted by the federal government. By setting a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions and running state and national auctions for emissions permits under the cap, the governments at all levels could accrue tens of billions of dollars annually (and Democrats know how to spend this windfall).
About 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions reputedly come from electricity-generating power plants so electric utilities are natural customers for "credits". Of course, as utilities they are guaranteed to make a specified profit by public utility regulation. The profit to which they are entitled is generally a percentage of their cost of producing electricity and this number is used in setting electric rates for consumers, i.e. their customers, you and I. Therefore how is this additional cost to be made up, why by increasing our cost of electricity?
Proponents of the cap and trade system including some governors as well as federal legislators say they are trying to create a new electricity marketplace where energy efficiency competes directly with power generation to meet growing demand at the lowest cost. But will this actually lower cost? How can costs be lowered if a new expense is added to the cost of producing electricity which is then passed onto the customer? They say that the present system rewards utilities for selling as much electricity as possible and this incentive is at odds with curbing greenhouse gas emissions. That may be true but it supposes two things: first that greenhouse gas emissions are to be avoided because of their alleged impact on global warming, excuse me "climate control", but ample evidence shows that is not correct and, second, total cost can be reduced by adding another expense to the cost of doing business (does this make sense to anyone?).
When you add what utilities will have to pay for credits to legislated limitations on where and from whom they can buy power to fill the needs of the public (California for example has a new law that will limit utilities in the near future to buying power only from power plants that do not use coal to generate power), it is clear it is electricity users on a local level and businesses that depend on electrical energy who will bear the entire cost for the climate control boondoggle.
Then of course lets not forget that the inventor of global warming, Al Gore, stands to make millions through his newly formed company that will buy and sell greenhouse emission credits, and that the academics who came up with the "evidence" of global warming get millions in research grants for helping to sell this lie.