Courtesy of freelance cartoonist and illustrator Steve Hunter, exclusively for Andy’s RANT!
Republished by permission.
Cartoon Copyright 2011 Steve Hunter | click to enlarge
Tag Archives: carbon tax
Greens Leader Browns His Trousers Over Blocked Shot, Cops Bollocking
12 Nov
On Wednesday, the day after the railroading of the carbon derivatives scam legislation through the Senate, Greens leader Bob Brown copped a right bollocking.
Why? Because, dear reader, he had requested a suspension of standing orders to bring a notice of motion concerning Parliamentary Behaviour.
Poor widdle Bobby Wobby* was not a happy chappy.
Let’s see why (from Hansard, emphasis added):
Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:01): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 549, which relates to conduct following the final vote on the clean energy bills, be taken as a formal motion.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An opposition senator: Yes, there is.
…
Let’s skip the subsequent formalities, and jump forward to the heart of the matter. Here’s Senator Bobby Wobby again:
Yesterday, when the final vote was taken on the legislation, you will know, Mr Deputy President, that the press gallery had more than 40 members— something I have not seen since the passage of the goods and services tax more than a decade ago. It was a major and historic moment for the Greens, and there were quite a number of cameras in the press gallery. Senator Heffernan got from his chair and walked down and stood in front of the contingent of Greens to obscure the cameras making a record of that event as we shook hands and generally were happy that the passage of that legislation had taken place. I am not particularly miffed about whether or not we get coverage obscured, but it was a churlish and childish thing for Senator Heffernan to do. He frequently invades other people’s press conferences, other people’s moments, book launches and so on. It was rude, if not to the Greens, to the photographers in the gallery, to the cameras here and to the watching and listening public, because it obscured their right to see the events taking place in this chamber…
Hmmmm… obscured the cameras, eh?
Greens Senators congratulate each other after the Government's Clean Energy (carbon tax) Bills were passed through the Senate today. Picture: Ray Strange
Greens leader Bob Brown hugs his deputy Christine Milne after the tax passed through Senate today. Photo: Andrew Meares
For your light entertainment today, we bring you a selection of highlights from the subsequent mauling that Senator Brown received, starting with Senator Abetz:
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:08): The man who has led demonstrations with big banners to block people out of sight and the man who has led demonstrations making a lot of noise to drown out other voices is the man who, in Pecksniffian manner, comes into this place complaining that somebody stood in the way of a camera. I know that this senator allegedly had an interest in the art of photography but I never knew that his interest in the art of photography only related to photographs of himself. What a vain, petulant speech we have just heard. We were told that this was a matter of national significance. Was the government’s view blocked? No. Was the view of the President, the most important person in this chamber, blocked? No. Even that of a humble leader of the opposition? No. And that of the National Party? No. Senator Xenophon’s? No. Senator Madigan’s? No. So what was this important group in the Senate that was being blocked? Not the government, not the opposition, not some Independents—oh, it was the Greens! I would suggest to Senator Brown that he be very careful with that glass of water in front of him, because if he stares in it when the light is shining in it he might see a narcissistic type reflection—and this is what this is all about. This is a window into the vanity of the Leader of the Australian Greens. This is a window into the petulance of the Australian Greens…
… I always thought Senator Heffernan was as skinny as a beanstalk. Now you are trying to say that he is bigger than a Mack truck. How on earth could a senator standing there block out the crossbenchers and the Greens all at the same time? It is a physical impossibility. Senator Brown was not concerned about the crossbenchers; he was concerned about himself, as is always the case…
… Is the senator actually trying to tell us and the Australian people that this is a matter of such great import that it needs the suspension of standing orders in this place as we need to discuss the fact that Senator Brown could not get his photograph taken because somebody who is about as slim as anybody else in this chamber, Senator Heffernan, happened to walk over to the Australian Greens to discuss the vote? This is petulance writ large and this is vanity writ large. But do you know what it also is writ large? The Australian Greens and, in particular, Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Brown. I have been around this joint for about 17 years and I have never seen or heard such a vain or petulant motion being put forward by any backbench senator, let alone somebody who claims to be the leader of an Australian political party. Mr Deputy President, I suggest that we dispense with this nonsense of Senator Brown’s and get on with the important business of the Senate.
Indeed.
However, it was Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi who really stood tall.
Linguistically. Logically. And literally:
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:18): It is an extraordinary thing when the worst fears of the Australian people are confirmed by the vainglorious and narcissistic motion that we have before us. It is offensive to the Australian people that this parliament seems to have nothing better to do than debate the pious and sanctimonious words put forward by Senator Bob Brown and Senator Milne because they missed a photo opportunity. In the last 31⁄2 or four minutes, we have heard all about upholding the standing orders, from the party of hypocrisy—the party that will not acknowledge the magnificence of the chair in this chamber when they enter and leave, the party that will not acknowledge people’s formal titles in Senate inquiries and hearings, the party that will not acknowledge standing orders. For the benefit of this chamber, let me put this to you:
A resolution of the Senate allows the media to photograph any senator in the chamber provided that they have the call.
Might I remind Senator Bob Brown that yesterday he did not have the call. He stood up and was champing at the bit, trying to grandstand by cuddling with his cabal over there, who have sent this country down a path from which there will be no return while they remain in power. But let me remind them that it is in breach of standing orders.
Senator Bob Brown has come up with this confected outrage and some contrived complaint against Senator Heffernan, who because of his generosity and magnanimous heart was simply going across there to acknowledge that we had been defeated in a challenge. But, in the rudeness, the shrillness and the smugness of the Greens party, they refused to acknowledge Senator Heffernan. I saw him. I watched him. He turned around and looked at the chamber; he looked to the chair and he acknowledged the chair humbly. I can only imagine what he said to himself: ‘Why won’t they talk to me? I’m just trying to be generous.’
One sniffs the scent of BS wafting in with that last bit. Still, what is it they say about arguing with idiots … they drag your down to their level, then beat you with experience?
But what has happened as a result? We have this hypocritical, vainglorious and narcissistic motion come into the chamber. It is only right that the Australian people would be questioning why this is happening. If there has been regrettable activity in this chamber, might I say much of it rests with the Greens party.
If you want to know about bad behaviour in and out of this place, we need look no further than Senator Bob Brown himself. This is the man who feigned bankruptcy or impending bankruptcy to collect money from the public for legal bills, around $300,000—
Senator Bob Brown: Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I take objection to ‘feigned bankruptcy’. It is untrue and unparliamentary, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Senator Abetz: Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Bob Brown might reflect that, when it was put to him that he was not actually going to go bankrupt, he amended the Greens website using words to the effect that he might not necessarily have technically gone bankrupt. So he did amend his language after those matters were drawn to his attention.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, it would assist if you withdrew that last remark.
Senator BERNARDI: I will withdraw that Senator Bob Brown was feigning bankruptcy, but he did—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Unconditionally, Senator Bernardi.
Senator BERNARDI: I withdraw unconditionally. But it did not stop Senator Brown, being the ecomillionaire, from collecting nearly $1 million in order to pay about $300,000 worth of legal bills. Anyone with any integrity who was not so consumed with hubris and ego would have said, ‘No, I’ve got my charity from the public; they can keep their money for themselves.’ This is a shameful stunt by a man who thinks the rules should apply differently to him than to anybody else.
This is a man who condemns political donations to any political party yet whose own party takes $1.6 million donations. I ask myself, and I am sure the Australian people will ask themselves, ‘Why was it that a line of questioning in this chamber by the Greens was directly related to the business interests of the person who made that donation?’ It is a proper and right question for this chamber to consider. It is a proper and right question for the Australian people to consider, Senator Brown. Might I also say that the question you are putting to the Australian people today in this chamber is simply inappropriate and improper. There is a dignity that should be maintained in this place. We should not sink to the lowest common denominator and debase it to the level that Senator Brown and the Greens wish to take it to. If we are maintaining the standing orders, if we are serious about maintaining the traditions and the other things that make the Senate such a special place in which to work, we cannot debase it by putting motions like this, by not acknowledging the chair and by showing flagrant contempt for standing orders whenever it suits. That is exactly what this does. We should not be surprised by it, because we have experienced it again and again from the Greens party.
Senator Brown and the Greens cannot handle any scrutiny—they have a glass jaw. That is why, when their policy position is examined, when there is any critical questioning of their own conduct and behaviour, their response is: ‘This is the hate media; this is persecution. The Greens are different. We’re separate. We’re isolated from the world.’
Senator Abetz: They are different.
Senator BERNARDI: Indeed they are different, they are separate and they are isolated from the world. Unfortunately, they have their hands on the tiller of government, and that is a shame for this country. (Time expired)
And after some more speeches from both sides…
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bob Brown to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
Question negatived.
And thusly, dear reader, the Australian Senate, 76 politician strong (plus Senate staff, assorted lackeys et al) .. financed by the Aussie taxpayer .. piss farted about for a full 30 minutes from 16:01 to 16:31 on Wednesday the nineth day of November in the year of our Lord 2011.
All thanks to Bob Brown’s self-righteous narcissism.
And his oh so genteel, just-don’t-scratch-the-surface, glass-jawed vindictiveness.
(Remind you of anyone?)
Just the sort of personality type we want running the country.
* An apropos moniker for the petulant Bob Brown, I suggest. The Wobbegong is a camouflaged, bottom-dwelling shark, whose feeding habits classify it an ambush predator.
Bobby Wobby.
You heard it here first.
Sad Day For Australia: Barnaby
8 NovGreens leader Bob Brown hugs his deputy Christine Milne after the tax passed through Senate today. Photo: Andrew Meares
Media release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 8 November 2011:
It is a very sad day for most Australians that we are about to “move forward” with legislation to redesign our economy on a colourless, odourless gas that quite obviously will put up the price of power and put pressure on real jobs in the real economy.
It is a very sad day when we approve a new broad based consumption tax delivered to every house whether they can afford it or not via the power points above their skirting boards, via the heater that keeps them warm, via the air conditioners that keep them cool, via the power that cooks their food, via the washing machine that cleans their clothes.
It is a very sad day when a government seems oblivious to the economic turmoil of the world and belligerently sets the ship of state blindly into precarious waters where the carbon tax we pay will be far in excess of any other scheme in the world, and our own government fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of the world has no such scheme at all.
It is a very sad day when the Australian people are taken for granted, deceived with a platitude addendum that “don’t worry about it; they are just simple souls, who’ll forget about our deceit and get over it.”
It is the height of conceit to think that other nations such as India or China, which the IMF states that by 2016 will be the largest economy in the world, will somehow be influenced by the legislation of our nation at the expense of their people.
We are more guided by Al Gore than by common sense and the chambers of this building have become fascinated with a highly naïve view that disregards the reality that we are merely 32 billion dollars away from our debt ceiling, the point at which on presentation of the nation’s credit card the checkout operator will say “transaction declined – see bank for details”.
One would think that we would be doing everything we can at this juncture to make our nation’s economy strong; to dispense with wondrous thoughts and replace them with utter pragmatism. We should look to the core requirements of core Australians which is to keep control of their cost of living and, more to the point, do nothing to exacerbate the loss of real jobs that require cheap power as their only competitive advantage over other nations who have cheap labour in abundance.
Yet today will end in a back slapping, hugging, kiss-a-thon that will be the bitterest of pill for those away from Parliament House who make the ultimate payment on this absurd tax.
Barnaby is right.
UPDATE:
And he fights on –
Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said his party would not stop fighting against the carbon price even after it became law later today.
“We can’t give up on this, it is just insane,” he said.
“The Michael Jackson trial is Hollywood and this carbon tax is pure Hollywood.
“It works on the premise that we can somehow affect the climate, and it is absolutely bumpkin.”
Ticking Time Bomb Hidden In The Carbon Tax
1 Nov
Remember when the world’s 3rd wealthiest man, Warren Buffet, called out the exotic financial product named derivatives as “a mega-catastrophic risk”, “financial weapons of mass destruction”, and a “time bomb”?
Over the next two weeks, our minority Green-Labor government is railroading a set of 19 new laws through the Senate.
They like to call those laws our Clean Energy Future.
And to date, no one in either the political class, or the media – including our “expert” economics media – have called out the ticking time bomb called derivatives that is buried carefully in the 1,000+ pages of our Clean Energy Future.
No one, except your humble blogger.
Here, dear reader, is proof positive that the government’s “carbon pricing mechanism” is not about changing the climate.
Nor is it, as the government claims, to “give effect to Australia’s international obligations on addressing climate change under the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol”.
Nor is it to “take action directed towards meeting Australia’s long-term target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050 and take that action in a flexible and cost-effective way”.
Nor is it to “to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions in a way that encourages investment in clean energy, supports jobs and competitiveness in the economy and supports Australia’s economic growth while reducing pollution.”
How can I be so sure?
Because not one of those claimed “Objects of the mechanism” requires laws that specifically permit bankers to create unlimited quantities of wholly unregulated “financial weapons of mass destruction” called derivatives (or “securities”).
They are completely unnecessary. Moreover, the ongoing GFC turmoil proves that unregulated derivatives markets represent a clear and present danger to our government-propped banking system, and thus are a sovereign risk.
And yet, this is just what our Green-Labor government is doing right now in the Senate.
Carefully buried in their Clean Energy Bill 2011 we find the ticking time bomb (underline added):
109A Registration of equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit
(1) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to the registration in the Registry of equitable interests in relation to carbon units.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an equitable interest that is a security interest within the meaning of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, and to which that Act applies.
In other words, while the regulations may make provision for registration of equitable interests in a carbon unit, they specifically (subsection 2) do not make provision for registering a “security interest” in a carbon unit.
[A “security interest in” a carbon unit is, quite simply, a derivative or “security” that is based on the underlying “value” of the carbon “unit”]
It is clear then, that the government does not want to record carbon derivatives creation and trading.
They want to permit it. Just not record or regulate it.
Indeed, they wish to ensure “avoidance of doubt” that banks are legally allowed to immediately pull the pin on creating and trading these (wholly unregulated) financial weapons of mass destruction (underline added):
110 Equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit
(1) This Act does not affect:
(a) the creation of; or
(b) any dealings with; or
(c) the enforcement of;
equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit.
(2) Subsection (1) is enacted for the avoidance of doubt.
And just in case you missed the point – and your missing the real point is, in fact, the whole point of their using such opaque language – then the truth is spelled out more clearly elsewhere.
Where?
Way down in the fine print, of course. In the Explanatory Memorandum tacked on to the end of the Bill (underline added):
3.36 The bill does not affect the creation or enforcement of, or any dealings with (including transfers of), equitable interests in carbon units. [Part 4, clause 110] This provision has been included for the avoidance of doubt. In addition, the bill does not prevent the taking of security over carbon units.
Now I ask you, dear reader.
How does the scheme’s granting permission for banks to create a secondary carbon securities trading market (ie, “security over” carbon units) help to reduce CO2 emissions?
Indeed, how does a wholly unmonitored and unregulated shadow banking market in carbon derivatives help to create a single cent in extra government revenue, for the Senator Milne-championed Clean Energy Finance Corporation to pour down the toilet of otherwise commercially unviable “green” energy projects?
Answer: It doesn’t.
The government will never see any of the profits generated by banks from their multi trillion dollar trading in wholly unregulated carbon derivatives.
But you can be certain that they (and we) will hear all about it when the banks’ multi trillion dollar derivatives betting on movements in the market price of thin air blows up too. Because that’s when – just as with the global mortgage derivatives trade that triggered GFC1 – the bankers will (again) come running to government for a bail out.
Did I say “trillions”?
Sure did.
As we have seen previously, according to the RBA our Aussie banking system already holds almost $17 Trillion worth of derivatives. Most of these are bankers bets on movements in Foreign Exchange Rates and Interest Rates. And these derivatives are all held Off the Balance Sheet:
In just 3 months from December to March, our banks’ exposure to Off-Balance Sheet derivatives “Business” has blown out by a whopping $1.99 Trillion, to a new all-time record total of $16.83 Trillion. That’s the biggest 3-month increase in our banks’ history.
By comparison, at March 2011 the banks have “only” $2.68 Trillion in On-Balance Sheet Assets. That’s an increase of “only” $19.9 Billion. In the same 3 months, their Off-Balance Sheet derivatives exposure blew out by 100 times that much ($1.99 Trillion)
Click to enlarge
[That’s right. Derivatives are a toxic, wholly artificial and unregulated financial product, created and traded en masse by the banks; they are held Off Balance Sheet so that noone really knows anything about their real activities. It was toxic derivatives over mortgages that nearly blew up the world in 2008.]
We have also seen previously, that our Aussie banking system is not “safe as houses”, as we are led to believe. Instead, it is a huge disaster waiting to happen. Our banks are only staying afloat – and generating ever-increasing salaries and bonuses for bankers – because of the government wholesale funding guarantee introduced in response to the GFC. Indeed, Moodys Ratings agency recently put our government on notice that it will slash our banks’ credit ratings if the government guarantee is withdrawn.
What happens when banks blow up?
The government (ie, the taxpayer) panics, and bails them out. Putting both current and future generations on the hook to pay for it.
What we have with the Clean Energy Future legislation, is a scheme designed by bankers (and their cheer-leading economists). For the benefit of bankers.
That’s why a scheme that purports to be all about reducing CO2 emissions, has a ticking time bomb called “derivatives” hidden inside.
While ever the scheme lasts, banks will make a killing.
Not just on fees and commissions for their role in buying and selling “permits”.
Oh no, dear reader.
That trade is just the surface of the carbon pricing scam.
The fees and commissions on the straight trading in carbon permits … is peanuts.
The real monster action is in the unlimited, unregulated derivatives market, that sits on top of the basic carbon trading market. Just imagine an inverted pyramid, with the trade in carbon permits at the bottom, pointy end.
What the banks really want – and what this blogger predicted and forewarned of time and again leading up to the release of the draft legislation – is a mechanism that allows them to create and trade carbon derivatives.
In unlimited, unregulated quantities.
And that is exactly what the Greens, and the Labor Party, in cahoots with Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, and Andrew Wilkie, have given the bankers.
In just a couple of little clauses. Carefully worded and buried in 1,000+ pages of bullsh!t legalese, so that noone will find it (or simply not understand it if they do).
If you want to do something practical to stop the bankers, then here’s my suggestion.
Call the Coalition Senators for your state.
Right now.
Tell them that you want them to go into the Senate policy committee hearings next week, and demand that the government explain the following:
(a) WHY their Clean Energy Future legislation specifically includes clauses permitting bankers to create unlimited, unregulated “financial weapons of mass destruction” on the back of the carbon pricing scheme;
(b) HOW their permitting banks to create unlimited, unregulated carbon derivatives will reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
(c) IF the government will guarantee the public that no taxpayer funds will ever be used to bail out a bank/s that gambles in the carbon derivatives casino and later gets into financial difficulty.
[Senators contact information here]
We know that the banks are already gleefully gearing up whole new departments for their new carbon derivatives trading casino.
Indeed, they were publicly bragging about it within a few days of the draft legislation being released:
Australian banks are eyeing opportunities to cash in on the proposed carbon tax by developing new financial products and services that capitalise on a market seen to be worth billions of dollars annually, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.
Australian financial firms that have experience in European carbon markets, such as Macquarie Group Ltd, Westpac Banking Corp Ltd and ANZ Banking Group Ltd are particularly keen to establish their presence in the Australian market.
The initial three-year fixed carbon tax period from 2012 will serve as time to prepare for the release of ETS permits by 2015, when opportunities will really open up for banks to capitalise on the carbon market.
ANZ’s head of energy trading said the value of the derivatives carbon market would dwarf the $10 billion initially raised by the government, according to the AFR.
What did I say about an inverted pyramid, with money/profit churn from the simple carbon permit trade being only the little pointy bit at the bottom … the thin end of the wedge?
The shadow banking casino in carbon derivatives is the huge bit at the top.
And just like every inverted pyramid, the carbon pricing scheme scam is inherently unstable.
The Green-Labor Clean Energy Future is an epic financial disaster, just waiting to happen.
When it comes to pricing carbon, all you need to remember is two words.
“Bankers”.
“Derivatives”.
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
It Begins – High Court Challenge To Carbon Tax
18 OctYesterday on radio 2GB, constitutional barrister Bryan Pape indicated that as the carbon tax will affect State-owned property – the electricity generators – there are grounds for the State governments to challenge the Commonwealth’s legislation (not yet passed into law) under section 114 of the Constitution.
Regular readers will know that your humble blogger recently launched Right On Our Side. It’s a movement focussing not on traditional protests and petitions, but on the law. Our focus is on finding new and innovative ways for the voters to legally challenge and ultimately, change it.
Right here, right now is a window of opportunity for you, dear reader, to help us put an end to the Green-Labor carbon tax “law”.
There are two (2) simple actions that you can take today. Both involve properly expressing Your Will to the politicians who have a legal duty to serve you:
Once the election is over that is the end of ballot paper voting until the next election. However, under both Federal and State Constitutions and Statute laws you have certain implied legal duties and obligations.
The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to make laws for the people, with the clear Implication that those laws will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.
It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your Member and Senators can properly fulfil their judicially defined function and duty in their houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of your will on any issue, then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your own laziness or indifference to blame.
Arthur A. Chresby, Research Analyst in Constitutional Law, and formerly Federal Member for Griffith (QLD) [1958-61] in the House of Representatives.
ACTION #1
Properly express Your Will to your state’s Senators in the Federal Parliament.
The Senate has not yet voted on the Clean Energy Future legislation. So there is still time to properly inform them of Your Will.
Here is a Sample letter that you can copy and send to each of your state’s Senators, expressing Your Will that they vote against the government’s Clean Energy Future (ie, carbon tax) bills in the Senate:
Dear [insert Senator’s Name],
I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament.
IT IS MY WILL that you vote against the passage of each one of the Clean Energy Future 2011 (ie, carbon tax) bills.
Yours faithfully,
[signed]
[insert your full name, address, and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.]
Should the Senator try to side step, or tell you what their party is or is not doing, simply write back immediately and say:
Dear [insert Senator’s Name],
I repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of MY WILL, I again inform you that it is MY WILL that you vote against the passage of each one of the Clean Energy Future 2011 (ie, carbon tax) bills.
Yours faithfully,
[signed]
[insert your full name, address, and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.]
You can find the contact details for your state’s Senators in the Federal Parliament here.
ACTION #2
Properly express Your Will to your state MP.
Here is a Sample letter that you can copy and send to your state MP, expressing Your Will that they take immediate action to have your State government challenge the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future (ie, carbon tax) bills in the High Court:
Dear [insert state MP’s Name],
I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament.
IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to cause the [insert state Name] State government to challenge the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future 2011 (ie, carbon tax) bills in the High Court.
Yours faithfully,
[signed]
[insert your full name, address, and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.]
Should the MP try to side step, or tell you what their party is or is not doing, simply write back immediately and say:
Dear [insert MP’s Name],
I repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of MY WILL, I again inform you that it is MY WILL that you take immediate action to cause the [insert state Name] State government to challenge the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future 2011 (ie, carbon tax) bills in the High Court.
Yours faithfully,
[signed]
[insert your full name, address, and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.]
You can find the contact details for your state’s MPs below –
When you are done with that, why don’t you come over to Right On Our Side?
It’s a movement.
You should join it.
Support For Carbon Price Means Support Killing Black People: Oxfam Report
14 Oct
See all the happy little politicians, dear reader?
And see all the happy little carbon tax / trading supporters?
What all these people are really supporting … is genocide.
Of black people.
From the New York Times (via Oxfam):
New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. | Credit: Sven Torfinn for The New York Times
In Scramble For Arable Land, Groups Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out
KICUCULA, Uganda — According to the [New Forests Company’s] proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.
People here remember it quite differently.
“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”
Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.
“They said if we hesitated they would shoot us,” said William Bakeshisha, adding that he hid in his coffee plantation, watching his house burn down. “Smoke and fire.”
William Bakeshisha, farmer and local chief, lost his house and land and now rents a room in a neighboring village. In his briefcase, he keeps documents that provide proof that he inherited the farm from his father | Credit: Sven Torfinn for The New York Times
According to a report released by the aid group Oxfam on Wednesday, more than 20,000 people say they were evicted from their homes here in recent years to make way for a tree plantation run by a British forestry company, emblematic of a global scramble for arable land.
“Too many investments have resulted in dispossession, deception, violation of human rights and destruction of livelihoods,” Oxfam said in the report. “This interest in land is not something that will pass.” As population and urbanization soar, it added, “whatever land there is will surely be prized.”
Across Africa, some of the world’s poorest people have been thrown off land to make way for foreign investors, often uprooting local farmers so that food can be grown on a commercial scale and shipped to richer countries overseas.
But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.
The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.
The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC.
In 2005, the Ugandan government granted New Forests a 50-year license to grow pine and eucalyptus forests in three districts, and the company has applied to the United Nations to trade under the mechanism. The company expects that it could earn up to $1.8 million a year.
But there was just one problem: people were living on the land where the company wanted to plant trees. Indeed, they had been there a while…
An evicted woman shows proof of land ownership | Credit: Sven Torfinn for The New York Times
Olivia Mukamperezida, 28, said her house was among the first in her community to be burned down. One day in late 2009, she said, her eldest son, Friday, was sick at home, so she went out to find medicine. Villagers suddenly told her to rush back. Everything was incinerated.
“I found my house when it was completely finished,” she said. “I just cried.”
Ms. Mukamperezida never found the culprits. She buried Friday’s bones in a grave, but says she does not know if it is still there.
“They are planting trees,” she said.
(Read the rest of the NYT story here.)
And then there’s this:
Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.
The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the “carbon credits” on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.
The company claims residents of Kicucula left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner, and yet the people tell a story of terror and bloodshed.
Villagers told of how armed “security forces” stormed their village and torched houses, burning an eight-year-child to death as they threatened to murder anyone who resisted while beating others.
“We were in church,” recalled Jean-Marie Tushabe, 26, a father of two. “I heard bullets being shot into the air.”
“Cars were coming with police,” Mr. Tushabe said, sitting among the ruins of his old home. “They headed straight to the houses. They took our plates, cups, mattresses, bed, pillows. Then we saw them getting a matchbox out of their pockets.”
An Oxfam report documents how the British outfit has worked with the Ugandan government to forcibly expel over 20,000 people from their homes using terror and violence as part of a lucrative scramble for arable land that can be used to satisfy the multi-billion dollar carbon trading ponzi scheme, which is worth $1.8 million a year to the company.
(Read the full article here.)
This is just one example of the unintended (?) consequences of the universally-ignorant support by multitudes of morally self-righteous, urban rich white people, for “pricing carbon” in the name of “saving the planet”.
But that’s ok … those are just dirt poor BLACK people, aren’t they? And the urban white self-righteous hate everything black … think black balloons coming out of air conditioners … except perhaps for their oh-so-fashionable “wicked” little black dress for an indulgent night out.
As has been demonstrated countless times on this blog – including from the government’s legislation – the “carbon tax” has never had anything whatsoever to do with climate change.
It is, and always has been, all about money. Derivatives, to be precise.
“Putting a price on carbon” is all about legally enabling the predatory financial sector to rape the world all over again, with a new derivatives-based ponzi scheme, after their Western world real estate derivatives bubble exploded (GFC1).
It is a very simple scam.
Carbon “pricing” creates in law a new artificial ‘commodity’ called “carbon ‘units’, having an artificially-created (by proclamation) monetary value.
Who benefits?
On the lower level, governments. The basic carbon “price” for selling (on threat of gaol) their “permits” to “pollute”, represents a new cashcow for politicians. For handing out to their mates, favouring special interests, and bribing the ever-more welfare-dependent electorate to vote for them (ie, keep them in power).
On the higher (unseen) level, the international shadow banking sector. “Pricing carbon” means they can (a) cream off billions in fees and commissions on the trade in those permits, but far more importantly (b) instantly create unlimited quantities of wholly unregulated carbon derivatives, to gamble on unregulated international trading markets.
Exactly like the Western real estate bubble.
If you support “putting a price on carbon”, then what you are really supporting is two outcomes.
Impoverishing the West.
And genocide of black people.
All for the benefit of … not the environment … but bankers.
A Word Of Encouragement From Barnaby
13 OctFrom Senator Joyce yesterday:
In response to this tweet:
Stay motivated?
✓
And mobilise?
✓
It’s a movement. You should join it.
Barnaby Is Right 
Comments