Tag Archives: UN

The Only Thing Preventing An End To World Poverty

9 Apr

There is only one (1) thing preventing an end to world poverty.

You.

Your ignorance. And your cowardice.

These are the facts.

According to UN special advisor Jeffrey Sachs, author of bestseller The End Of Poverty, described by Time magazine as “the world’s best known economist”, it would take $175 billion per year to end “extreme” poverty in the world.

According to the US Federal Reserve Bank, between 2007 and 2010 they created $1.7 Trillion per week out of thin air to prop up so-called “Too Big To Fail” banks around the world.

$1.7 Trillion per week is five hundred and twenty (520) times more than the amount of money needed to end world poverty.

Conclusion.

If, according to bankers and politicians, it was “urgent” and “necessary” for one central bank to create $Trillions per week ex nihilo just to bail out greedy, arrogant, reckless, parasitic bankers – The World’s Most Immoral Institution – then it is infinitely more urgent and necessary for you and I to demand that all central banks create ex nihilo the mere $billions needed per year to bail out every single human being living in poverty.

It is that simple.

Now, you know the facts.

You are no longer ignorant.

You are just a coward.

cow·ard [kou-erd]
noun
1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

Advertisements

Bob Brown Calls On “Fellow Earthians” To Embrace “Global Parliament”

26 Mar

No commentary required.

As you will see.

From the Greens official website (my emphasis added):

Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration

23 Mar | General

The full text of Bob’s speech is below:

Fellow Earthians,

Never before has the Universe unfolded such a flower as our collective human intelligence, so far as we know.

Nor has such a one-and-only brilliance in the Universe stood at the brink of extinction, so far as we know.

We people of the Earth exist because our potential was there in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, as the Universe exploded into being.

So far, it seems like we are the lone thinkers in this vast, expanding Universe.

However, recent astronomy tells us that there are trillions of other planets circling Sunlike stars in the immensity of the Universe, millions of them friendly to life. So why has no one from elsewhere in the Cosmos contacted us?

Surely some people-like animals have evolved elsewhere. Surely we are not, in this crowded reality of countless other similar planets, the only thinking beings to have turned up. Most unlikely! So why isn’t life out there contacting us? Why aren’t the intergalactic phones ringing?

Here is one sobering possibility for our isolation: maybe life has often evolved to intelligence on other planets with biospheres and every time that intelligence, when it became able to alter its environment, did so with catastrophic consequences. Maybe we have had many predecessors in the Cosmos but all have brought about their own downfall.

That’s why they are not communicating with Earth. They have extincted themselves. They have come and gone. And now it’s our turn.

Whatever has happened in other worlds, here we are on Earth altering this bountiful biosphere, which has nurtured us from newt to Newton.

Unlike the hapless dinosaurs, which went to utter destruction when a rocky asteroid plunged into Earth sixty-five million years ago, this accelerating catastrophe is of our own making.

So, just as we are causing that destruction, we could be fostering its reversal. Indeed, nothing will save us from ourselves but ourselves.

We need a strategy. We need action based on the reality that this is our own responsibility – everyone’s responsibility.

So democracy – ensuring that everyone is involved in deciding Earth’s future – is the key to success.

For comprehensive Earth action, an all-of-the-Earth representative democracy is required. That is, a global parliament.

In his Gettysburg address of 1859, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed: ‘We here highly resolve… that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.’

153 years later, let us here in Hobart, and around the world, highly resolve that through global democracy we shall save the Earth from perishing.

For those who oppose global democracy the challenge is clear: how else would you manage human affairs in this new century of global community, global communications and shared global destiny?

Recently, when I got back to bed at Liffey after ruminating under the stars for hours on this question, Paul enquired, ‘did you see a comet?’ ‘Yes’, I replied, ‘and it is called ‘Global Democracy’.

A molten rock from space destroyed most life on the planet those sixty-five million years ago. Let us have the comet of global democracy save life on Earth this time.

Nine years ago, after the invasion of Iraq which President George W. Bush ordered to promote democracy over tyranny, I proposed to the Australian Senate a means of expanding democracy without invasion. Let Australia take the lead in peacefully establishing a global parliament. I explained that this ultimate democracy would decide international issues. I had in mind nuclear proliferation, international financial transactions and the plight of our one billion fellow people living in abject poverty.

In 2003 our other Greens Senator, Kerry Nettle, seconded the motion but we failed to attract a single other vote in the seventy-six seat chamber. The four other parties – the Liberals, the Nationals, Labor and the Democrats – voted ‘no!’. As he crossed the floor to join the ‘noes’, another senator called to me: ‘Bob, don’t you know how many Chinese there are?’.

Well, yes I did. Surely that is the point. There are just 23 million Australians amongst seven billion equal Earthians. Unless and until we accord every other citizen of the planet, friend or foe, and regardless of race, gender, ideology or other characteristic, equal regard we, like them, can have no assured future.

2500 years ago the Athenians, and 180 years ago the British, gave the vote to all men of means. After Gettysburg, the United States made the vote available to all men, regardless of means. One man, one vote.

But what about women, Louisa Lawson asked in 1889: “Pray, why should one half of the world govern the other half?”

So, in New Zealand, in 1893, followed by South Australia in 1895, and the new Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, universal suffrage – the equal vote for women as well as men – was achieved.

In this second decade of the Twenty First Century, most people on Earth get to vote in their own countries. Corruption and rigging remain common place but the world believes in democracy. As Winston Churchill observed in 1947,

‘Many forms of government have been tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’

Yet, in Australia and other peaceful places which have long enjoyed domestic democracy, establishing a global democracythe ultimate goal of any real democrat – is not on the public agenda.

Exxon, Coca-Cola, BHP Billiton and News Corporation have much more say in organising the global agenda than the planet’s five billion mature-age voters without a ballot box.

Plutocracy, rule by the wealthy, is democracy’s most insidious rival. It is served by plutolatry, the worship of wealth, which has become the world’s prevailing religion. But on a finite planet, the rule of the rich must inevitably rely on guns rather than the ballot box, though, I hasten to add, wealth does not deny a good heart. All of us here are amongst the world’s wealthiest people, but I think none of us worship wealth to the exclusion of democracy.

We instinctively know that democracy is the only vehicle for creating a fair, global society in which freedom will abound, but the extremes of gluttony and poverty will not. Mahatma Ghandi observed, the world has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.

So what’s it to be: democracy or guns? I pluck for democracy.

The concept of world democracy goes back centuries, but since 2007, there has been a new movement towards an elected, representative assembly at the United Nations, in parallel with the unelected, appointed, General Assembly. This elected assembly would have none of the General Assembly’s powers but would be an important step along the way to a future, popularly elected and agreeably empowered global assembly.

Two Greens motions in the Australian Senate to support this campaign for a global people’s assembly have been voted down. However similar motions won support in the European Parliament, and in India 40 MPs, including a number of ministers, have backed the proposal. I will move for the world’s 100 Greens parties to back it too, at the third Global Greens conference in Senegal next week. It fits perfectly with the Global Greens Charter, adopted in Canberra in 2001.

We Earthians can develop rosier prospects. We have been to the Moon. We have landed eyes and ears on Mars. We are discovering planets hundreds of light years close which are ripe for life. We are on a journey to endless wonder in the Cosmos and to realising our own remarkable potential.

To give this vision security, we must get our own planet in order.

The political debate of the Twentieth century was polarised between capitalism and communism. It was about control of the economy in the narrow sense of material goods and money. A free market versus state control.

Bitter experience tells us that the best outcome is neither, but some of both. The role of democracy in the nation state has been to calibrate that balance.

In this Twenty First Century the political debate is moving to a new arena. It is about whether we expend Earth’s natural capital as our population grows to ten billion people in the decades ahead with average consumption also growing.

We have to manage the terrifying facts that Earth’s citizenry is already using one hundred and twenty percent of the planet’s productivity capacity – its renewable living resources; that the last decade was the hottest in the last 1300 years (if not the last 9000 years); that we are extincting our fellow species faster than ever before in human history; and that to accommodate ten billion people at American, European or Australasian rates of consumption we will need two more planets to exploit within a few decades.

It may be that the Earth’s biosphere cannot tolerate ten billion of us big consuming mammals later this century. Or it may be that, given adroit and agreeable global management, it can. It’s up to us.

Once more the answer lies between the poles: between the narrow interests of the mega-rich and a surrender to the nihilist idea that the planet would be better off without us.

It will be global democracy’s challenge to find the equator between those poles, and it is that equator which the Greens are best placed to reach.

One great difference between the old politics and Green politics, is the overarching question which predicates all our political decisions: ‘will people one hundred years from now thank us?’

In thinking one hundred years ahead, we set our community’s course for one hundred thousand years: that humanity will not perish at its own hand but will look back upon its Twenty First Century ancestry with gratitude.

And when the future smiles, we can smile too.

That query ‘will people a hundred years from now thank us?’ should be inscribed across the door of Earth’s parliament.

So let us resolve

that there should be established

for the prevalence and happiness of humankind

a representative assembly

a global parliament

for the people of the Earth

based on the principle of

one person one vote one value;

and to enable this outcome

that it should be a bicameral parliament

with its house of review

having equal representation

elected from every nation.

An Earth parliament for all. But what would be its commission? Here are four goals:

Economy.

Equality.

Ecology.

Eternity.

To begin with economy, because that word means managing our household. The parliament would employ prudent resource management to put an end to waste and to better share Earth’s plenitude. For example, it might cut the trillion dollars annual spending on armaments. A cut of just ten percent, would free up the money to guarantee every child on the planet clean water and enough food, as well as a school to attend to develop her or his best potential. World opinion would back such a move, though, I suppose Boeing, NATO, the People’s Liberation Army, and the Saudi Arabian royal family might not.

The second goal is equality. This begins with equality of opportunity – as in every child being assured that school, where lessons are in her or his own first language, and a health clinic to attend. Equality would ensure, through the fair regulation of free enterprise, each citizen’s wellbeing, including the right to work, to innovate, to enjoy creativity and to understand and experience and contribute to defending the beauty of Earth’s biosphere.

Which brings me to the third goal: ecology. Ecological wellbeing must understrap all outcomes, so as to actively protect the planet’s biodiversity and living ecosystems. ‘In wildness’, wrote Thoreau ‘is the preservation of the world.’ Wild nature is our cradle and the most vital source for our spiritual and physical wellbeing yet it is the world’s most rapidly disappearing resource. And so I pay tribute to Miranda Gibson, 60 metres high on her tall tree platform tonight as the rain and snow falls across central Tasmania. In Miranda’s spirit is the saving of the world.

And lastly, eternity. Eternity is for as long as we could be. It means beyond our own experience. It also means ‘forever’, if there is no inevitable end to life. Let’s take the idea of eternity and make it our own business.

I have never met a person in whom I did not see myself reflected. Some grew old and died, and I am now part of their ongoing presence on Earth.

Others have a youthful vitality which I have lost and will soon give up altogether. These youngsters will in turn keep my candle, and yours, if you are aged like me, alight in the Cosmos. In this stream of life, where birth and death are our common lot, the replenishment of humankind lights up our own existences. May it go on and on and on…

The pursuit of eternity is no longer the prerogative of the gods: it is the business of us all, here and now.

Drawing on the best of our character, Earth’s community of people is on the threshold of a brilliant new career in togetherness. But we, all together, have to open the door to that future using the powerful key of global democracy.

I think we are intelligent enough to get there. My faith is in the collective nous and caring of humanity, and in our innate optimism. Even in its grimmest history, the optimism of humanity has been its greatest power. We must defy pessimism, as well as the idea that there is any one of us who cannot turn a successful hand to improving Earth’s future prospects.

I am an optimist. I’m also an opsimath: I learn as I get older. And, I have never been happier in my life. Hurtling to death, I am alive and loving being Green.

I look forward in my remaining years to helping spread a contagion of confidence that, together, we people of Earth will secure a great future. We can and will retrieve Earth’s biosphere. We will steady ourselves – this unfolding flower of intelligence in the Universe – for the long, shared, wondrous journey into the enticing centuries ahead.

Let us determine to bring ourselves together, settle our differences, and shape and realise our common dream for this joyride into the future. In that pursuit, let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value.

We must, we can, we will.

Er ….

Over to you, fellow “Earthian”.

Labor Censorship Push Breaches UN UDHR, Turns Doc Evatt In His Grave

3 Mar

Labor’s Bob Brown-inspired push to “regulate” the media continues apace, with the release of the Finkelstein Review.

Under its recommendations, even blogs such this would be “regulated” by the government:

BLOGGERS and online student publications, such as one run by the University of Technology, Sydney, would be caught in the net of the proposed media regulator.

Souraya Ramadan, editor of student-run UTS website Reportage Online, said recommendations in the Finkelstein review calling for the regulation of news sites with more than 15,000 hits a year would place an unfair burden on small online publishers.

“We are a not-for-profit news site, which helps young journalists build their portfolios. We barely have any resources,” she said. “If implemented, this is going to penalise smaller news providers who don’t have the resources to be able to deal with the regulator.”

The Australian Labor Party has certainly “lost its way”.

They seem to have forgotten that one of their very own, Dr H.V. “Doc” Evatt, as Australia’s delegate to the United Nations, played a key role in drafting the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

They seem to have forgotten that, as President of the United Nations General Assembly, Doc Evatt oversaw the adoption of the UDHR by the UN’s member countries – including Australia – in 1948.

Above all, modern Australian Labor (and Bob Brown) seem to have forgotten Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (emphasis added):

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Leading founder of the United Nations, co-drafter of the UDHR, High Court judge, lifelong ALP member, Attorney-General, Minister for External Affairs (Foreign Minister), and Labor opposition leader 1951-60 H.V. “Doc” Evatt will be turning in his grave.

The battlelines are drawn.

The fight for freedom of speech Down Under has begun.

Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech.

Charles Bradlaugh, founder of the National Secular Society

By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech.

Harry A. Blackmun, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, author of Roe vs Wade

Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance.

William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.

Salman Rushdie, winner of the Booker Prize, author of The Satanic Verses

It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.

Herbert Hoover, 31st President of the United States

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Frederick Douglass, social reformer, leader of the abolitionist movement

Without free speech no search for truth is possible… no discovery of truth is useful.

Charles Bradlaugh, founder of the National Secular Society

Know your enemy. And, I hope now that everybody understands that the Labour Party – as it always has done – stands for free speech and individual Members of the Labour Party are entitled to exercise that free speech.

Ron Davies, Member of the Labour Party (UK), first minister to resign from Tony Blair’s government in 1998

UPDATE:

Some food for thought concerning Ray Finkelstein, the man chosen by Labor to oversee their “media inquiry” and produce their report –

Raymond Finkelstein QC, better known as The Fink will go down in history as one of the greatest fools to ever be appointed a judge, an absolute legend. This is a man who tried to hear his own case which was before the court. It does not get much worse than that.

Justice Finkelstein was eventually forced to stop hearing the case because not only did he have a financial interest in the case but he was in fact one of the parties to the class action against a company called Centro Properties via his own private super fund.

Raymond Finkelstein needs to stand down from hearing the media inquiry. At best, given the above, he is an idiot who does not know the law. At worst, a corrupt former judge who has been brought in to hand down pre-determined findings.

 

More Proof That Support For Carbon Price Means Support For Killing Black People

9 Dec

Your humble blogger copped some flack via that paragon of intelligent public discourse (Twitter) for publishing a very similar headline in October.

Then, we saw how an Oxfam report shed light on the violent forced eviction and genocide of Ugandans by the UN-supported carbon credit ‘farming’ corporation, New Forests Company.

Today … in recognition of the final day of the UN IPCC’s warmageddonist conference in Durban, Africa … we look at a similar story from Honduras, as reported by Jeremy Kryt in the online In These Times.

Jeremy is a graduate of the Indiana University School of Journalism and the University of Iowa Writers’ Workshop. He has been reporting from Honduras since August 2009, and his coverage of the crisis there has appeared, or is forthcoming, in The Earth Island Journal, Huffington Post, Alternet and The Narco News Bulletin, among other publications.

Following is his report reproduced in full:

A boy stands next to a hut on a palm plantation in the Aguan Valley in August. The slogan reads "Area recovered by the MUCA," which stands for "United Peasant Movement of Aguan." (Photo by Orlando Sierra/AFP/Getty Images)

Carbon Credits in the ‘Valley of Death’

Uncovering the ugly effects of U.N.-backed ‘clean development’ in Honduras.

AGUAN VALLEY, HONDURAS–At 3,000 square miles, the Aguan River Valley in northeastern Honduras is about the same size as California’s Death Valley. But despite being green and fertile, the Aguan basin is becoming famous as a “valley of death.” Since January 2010, at least 45 displaced peasants have been killed in clashes over land rights in Aguan, and “the actual number of killings is probably much higher,” according to Annie Bird, co-director of the human rights advocacy group Rights Action (RA), who visited Honduras in September.

Bird and other critics say that the violence in Aguan is driven by competition over resources between local farmers and large-scale, biofuel production facilities. The valley is home to more than a dozen African palm plantations that supply “green” energy to Europe and Asia, as well as a pair of biogas plants that operate as part of a United Nations carbon-credit initiative.

“The agribusinesses are after all the prime farmland in Aguan,” Bird says. “That’s what’s driving the conflict here.”

African palm plantations have also been linked to land-based violence in Indonesia, Africa, and elsewhere in Latin America, as worldwide demand for biofuels has soared in recent years. But using arable land for fuels, as opposed to food production, has caused a spike in global food prices. In October 2011, the U.N. Committee on Food Security issued a report citing biofuel production as one of the leading causes of food shortages worldwide.

Ignoring its own committee’s report, the U.N. continues to endorse the two biogas plants attached to African palm plantations in the Aguan Valley as part of its controversial Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) program. A product of the Kyoto Protocol, CDMs allow governments and companies from Western countries to trade carbon credits with businesses in developing nations that utilize renewable energy and other carbon-saving techniques. Critics of the CDM program point to the food-vs-fuel dilemma, as well as the issue of “additionality”–that is, whether or not a given CDM would exist without U.N.-sanctioned investments. But Bird says there is a moral component as well.

“By approving investment in these projects, the U.N. has made itself an accomplice to a human rights crisis,” Bird says. “It’s just shameful.”

Killings and forced evictions

Both the CDMs in Aguan use the bacteria-rich wastewater left over from palm-oil extraction to produce methane for biogas. But the methane capture process is only cost-effective on a large scale–and observers say that gives local companies a direct incentive to expand operations.

David Calix, spokesman for the Campesino Movement of Aguan (MCA), says, “Within the last two years more than 1,500 peasant families have lost their homes, schools and communities due to forceful evictions,” all of which have been linked to African Palm expansion efforts in the Aguan valley.

In July, the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) released a report on Aguan alleging evictions and armed attacks against local communities by “plantation security guards and private militia groups” allowed to act with impunity. The FIDH paper forced a couple of powerful European investors to back out of the Aguan CDM project and caused the European Parliament to order a fact-finding mission. So far, however, these measures don’t seem to have had any impact on the escalating violence.

Over just two days in August, skirmishes between guards and peasants left 11 people dead. A few days later, two more campesino leaders were assassinated–one of them, Pedro Salgado, was shot down in his home along with his wife. An entire peasant village was burned to the ground. The international outcry became so severe that in early September, the Honduran government dispatched a force of about 1,000 special police officers and soldiers to occupy the valley.

But Bird says that instead of protecting peasants’ human rights, the occupation forces have aided in their persecution. Reports have emerged of police and soldiers cracking down on peasant communities, and even taking part in evictions. “Death squad” attacks on peasants have continued at about the same pace during the occupation, with four assassinations in the same week in early October. No arrests have been made in any of the killings, and no suspects have been named.

Hazardous occupation

“The troops say they have come to bring us security, but that is a lie,” says MCA President Rodolfo Cruz. “They are here to serve the interests of the rich land owners, the same ones who control the politicians back in [the Honduran capital of] Tegucigalpa.” Cruz is also acting mayor of a small peasant community called Rigores, which he claims has been threatened several times with eviction by both security guards and law enforcement.

Cruz also reports that citizens are being searched at random, and that there have been mass round-ups and arrests as the authorities hunt down leaders of the movement.

“They are accusing us of having weapons, of forming an insurgency,” says Cruz, whose 16-year-old son, Santos, was allegedly tortured for information while in police custody on September 19. Cruz maintains that the MCA and other organizations are pacifist movements dedicated to nonviolent resistance.

Bird, who has researched the case, believes there is no doubt that Cruz’ son was targeted by authorities because his father is a prominent spokesman for land reform. “It’s all part of their pattern of intimidation,” she says. “There is no functional justice system in Honduras.” As further evidence of legal dysfunction, Bird points out that the businessman with the most holdings in Aguan, Miguel Facusse Barjum, was recently revealed by WikiLeaks to have strong ties to Colombian cocaine traffickers. “The police are evicting peasants from the property of a known drug lord,” she says. “That just shows you how rotten the system is.”

Although in September there were hints in the Honduran press that the police have captured cell phones that prove the existence of a rebel army some 300 strong, Honduran Police Chief Julio Benitez is much more circumspect. “We really don’t know what is going on in Aguan,” Avila says. “We know there are armed groups. We know people are being shot up under mysterious circumstances. But it is very complicated.”

When asked about the charges of police brutality, Avila declined to respond, saying only, “[The Honduran police] are a professional organization. We behave in a professional manner. We are working hard to safeguard the peasants of Aguan and to protect them from violent criminals.”

Push for reform

“The situation in Honduras is, of course, of great concern to us,” CDM board Chair Martin Hession says. “We don’t want to be associated with this type of thing in any way.” Hession says that as a result of the violence in Aguan, the CDM Board has “increased surveillance” in regard to approving new projects.

But Eva Filzmoser, program director of the Brussels-based CDM Watch, believes that’s too little, too late. “We are deeply disappointed … that the [Aguan] project was registered despite the serious concerns about alleged human rights abuses,” Filzmoser wrote in an e-mail.

Filzmoser charges that Hession and the rest of the board chose to ignore early reports of violence coming out of Honduras when they approved the project in July of 2011. Part of the problem is systemic, she writes, stemming from a lack of stakeholder oversight by the CDM board itself. “The [Aguan] project would never have been registered if the proper rules were in place,” Filzmoser wrote.

Bird also sees an inherent flaw in the CDM program. “If you’re taking away land from poor people to generate biofuels, you’re effectively condemning them to death by starvation,” she says.

Hession says such things are beyond the purview of the CDM board. “We can’t be the arbiter of human rights across the world.” To which Bird responds: “That’s the single, fundamental mandate of the U.N. Human rights are what the U.N. was created to promote. And the CDM board is still part of the U.N.”

For Cruz, who is also a farmer, the issue at stake is less philosophical than practical: “All we want is a place to grow our corn, to grow our beans,” he says. “All we want is a right to work the land.”

I can think of no more apropos concluding comment, than to repeat that of my October 14th Ugandan genocide post:

This is just one [more] 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”…

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.

UPDATE:

And the push to use prime agricultural land for carbon credit “farming” includes our own backyard (h/t @HiggsBoson4):

Bio Lands Pty Ltd (Bio Lands) has compiled a substantial portfolio of grazing/biodiversity offset lands. The portfolio can provide the development industry with rapid access to strategically acquired, fully documented biodiversity offsets

Click to enlarge

And from ABC News yesterday:

Carbon farming starts today – in a limited way

Farmers can earn money from reducing carbon emissions from today.

The Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative has opened for business, but there’s a catch.

Only two methods that farmers and landholders can use to cut emissions have been approved, one of which is capturing methane from piggeries.

Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Mark Dreyfus says more methods will be approved in coming months.

“We think it’s important to take time to make sure the methodologies have integrity, because the methodologies lead to the ability to sell carbon credits and companies that are purchasing carbon credits want to know that the credits represent real emissions reductions.”

I suggest that the “integrity” of carbon credit “farming” “methodologies” is already very evident indeed. One only need cast one’s eyes around the world, at the precedents that have been set elsewhere.

Most Important Video On The Internet

23 Jul

Please watch the following brilliant video, that some wise and alert Aussie soul has had professionally created.

Sums up perfectly the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, behind our government’s push for a carbon tax / ETS … aided and abetted since 2004 by The Goldman-churian Candidate, Malcolm Turnbull.

I apologise that I am unable to embed it here, so you will have to watch it after the jump – http://kzoo.co/VyQHed

Enjoy … and SHARE.

China, India Receive Free UN Carbon Credits For Coal-Fired Power Plants

15 Jul

The following article was brought to my attention by a reader, who has also provided a copy of his related letter to Greg Hunt MP (below).

The implications of this story for Australia’s public policy on addressing “climate change” are profound.

In effect, what the following revelation means is this.

Australia, under our Green-Labor-Independent dictatorship, will be deliberately undermining our own coal-fired electricity sector via the Government’s no-mandate imposition of a carbon “X” scheme; we will then be buying some $3 Billion per annum worth of carbon dioxide credits from countries such as China and India; they will be able to sell us their UN-provided free carbon credits, while at the same time, buying our coal to burn in their UN-subsidised coal-fired powerplants.

Read on, and be stunned at the insanity of green totalitarianism’s global policy of reduce-all-to-the-lowest-common-denominator:

Environmentalists criticized the United Nations on Tuesday after it ruled that a large Indian coal-fired power project is eligible to earn carbon credits worth $165 million at current prices.

Several green organizations said the U.N. rules, or methodology, applied to the 4,000 MW supercritical plant owned by Reliance Power were flawed and that the project was viable without the sweeteners of tradable carbon credits called certified emissions reductions (CERs).

The power station, in Krishnapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, is the second Reliance Power project to be formally registered by the United Nations under its Clean Development Mechanism.

In total, five high-efficiency coal power plants have been registered under the CDM — four in India and one in China — meaning they are all eligible to earn CERs that they can sell.

The five registered power projects involve two from Reliance Power totaling 8,000 MW, two projects totaling 2,640 MW from Adani Power and a 2,000 MW ultra-supercritical plant by Shenergy in China.

According to U.N. data, the five projects are eligible to receive a total of 68.2 million CERs over a 10-year crediting period. That is worth 661 million euros ($919 million) based on current prices of CERs traded on the European Climate Exchange of 9.70 euros.

Reliance’s Krishnapatnam plant will receive 12.3 million CERs and the firm’s other 4,000 MW plant, Sasan Power in Madhya Pradesh, will receive 22.5 million.

You read that right.

5 coal-fired powerplants in China and India are to receive hundreds of millions worth of free carbon credits from the UN.

They will profit from selling those free permits – quite possibly to Australia, thanks to our Government’s plan to deliberately undermine our international competitiveness – while burning our coal in their power plants.

The reader who kindly provided the link to the above article has also provided a copy of his letter to Opposition Climate Action spokesman, Greg Hunt MP. Regular readers will be familiar with Mr Hunt’s penchant for equivocation and obfuscation when challenged, from his recent exchange with your humble blogger ( “Letter To Greg Hunt MP” ), and so will not be at all surprised to learn that his response to our reader’s letter was similarly brief, obfuscatory, and inane.

Please read on for further insights into the cold hard reality, that our card-carrying Green cargo-cult politicians all wilfully choose to ignore –

Hi,

Firstly please don’t think I am going to bombard you with emails, I’m not – far too busy for a kickoff! 🙂 but this is too insane and serious to not bring to your attention.

http://www.eco-business.com/news/carbon-credits-for-india-coal-
power-plant-stoke-criticism/

A massive coal-based project in India is now earning carbon credits in the hundreds of thousands a year, the exact opposite outcome of our carbon tax from the same basic facts.

What is significant in this is that local coal producers and users such as energy plants are being smashed by the carbon tax, which is based directly (allegedly) on UN guidelines, the IPCC and the Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocols.

So how can the same “rules” credit coal plants in India and lead to our coal plants being taxed to hell and gone?

That clearly means there is a misapplication of the rules, and a fatally serious one, either in India, or here.

If it’s in India, the whole credit system at the UN is called into question. If that’s the case, our own carbon tax is following a dead end and has to stop immediately.

If the problem is here, we must immediately adopt changes to the proposed carbon law (or better yet kill it, but…) so as to reflect the same rulings here as India enjoys. In the process, that would, through carbon accounting, greatly reduce our carbon footprint, at the stroke of a pen, rather than through merciless economic warfare on our engine room industries.

There is a very VERY lively insider discussion on this in the carbon trade industry right now. Ugly arguments over carbon accounting and carbon auditing, the principle of additionality and just exactly what we wouldn’t want if the ETS type approach is to work.

Madness.

What is particularly serious about this situation is that the DCCEE should have been all over this issue like a cheap suit. To the best of my knowledge no one from junior time server up to the minister even has the faintest clue this situation has occurred. I did try and tell them a year ago but they are yet to reply to that email.

How ironic.

If the Gillard gang do what the do best – nothing – we will be in a situation where our own government is penalising our coal industry, AND forcing them to buy credits after a few years of soaking them with a tax… At the exact same time as India not only does not have a penalty tax (their carbon tax on coal is a pittance), but they are now allowed to earn credits from coal. Coal is the most abundantly used industrial fuel source in India and its region.

This means they will now be paid by the UN carbon trade to use coal, be allowed to trade in credits freely, escape any of their own taxation, and see our own coal industry become totally and completely irrevocably non competitive.

This carbon tax has scaled the dizzying heights of lunacy in less than a week, and I say that as a carbon trader. This is just nuts.

I am back in Australia as of Saturday, and am making myself available at once to brief any or all of you or any coal industry personnel who need to understand this. This has got no press but it is a big deal. It empowers India (and China) to triple dip on their coal use whilst the bozo gillard government destroys Australia’s power base.

Politically I also hope this can be used to devastating effect during La Gillard’s “Endless Bummer” walking tour of Australia. I know the situation described is somewhat technical but it comes down to this:

Why are we taxing coal into oblivion under the same system that is rewarding India for using coal?

We will end up buying credits for our coal from India’s coal. Huh?

China will follow India in this.

China will then be exploiting our down spiral economy by buying coal cheap, earning credits on that coal in China, then selling the credits back to us. HUH?

The DCCEE is ASLEEP! And that’s probably good because when they’re awake- something in our economy dies.

All the best to you, and if this has been any use at all I am very glad.

(Name withheld for privacy)

Carbon Tax Could “Bugger” The Country

15 Jul

From the Australian:

A leading businessman has warned that the Gillard government’s carbon policy could “bugger the country”, joining a chorus against the tax, as consumer sentiment sinks.

University of Queensland chancellor and former Suncorp chairman John Story said yesterday the government’s carbon package relied on a “huge leap of faith”, because the technology to manage a cost-effective transition to a low-carbon economy did not yet exist.

His warning followed this week’s criticism of the carbon tax by media and mining mogul Kerry Stokes and fellow West Australians, resource heavyweights Andrew Forrest and Gina Rinehart.

Mr Stokes warned this week that Australia was at risk of imposing too many extra costs on industry and pricing foreign investors out of the market.

Mr Story said the carbon tax also presented a huge challenge for research institutions to develop clean energy technology.

Indeed.

We can see from today’s lead story, that the development of so-called “clean energy technology” really involves a massive transfer of wealth.

From so-called “rich” (ie, debt-deluged) nations, to “poor” (less debt-deluged) nations.

The UN itself has indicated that the cost to achieve the level of “clean energy technology” propounded, approaches $76 Trillion by their own (unbelievable) estimates:

UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy

Right now, indeed, it’s likely that the United Nations poses a far greater threat to Western Civilisation and the world’s economic future than Al Qaeda does. Have a glance at its latest report World Economic And Social Survey 2011 – and you’ll see what I mean.

The report argues that over the next 40 years our governments must spend an annual minimum of $1.9 trillion – that’s an eyewatering $76 trillion – steering the global economy onto the path of “green growth.”

But “Green growth” – as the report more or less acknowledges – is an oxymoron. That’s why, even though it was supervised by an alleged economist, Dutchman Rob Vos, the report is not at all ashamed to advocate limiting economic growth through rationing, punitive taxation and other forms of government intervention. Why? To combat “Climate Change”, of course.

Here’s the kicker:

“Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context.” (P.19)

And if shaving off $1.9 trillion from the world economy each year (that’s 3 per cent of the world gross product in 2010) results in further economic stagnation and a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren, well what the hell. As the report primly tells us, none of us actually needs to earn more than $10,000 a year. Anything more is greedy:

“For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarly…cross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.”

Are they seriously suggesting that developed economies should ration their people’s energy use? They surely are:

“The Survey estimates that the emissions cap would be equivalent to primary energy consumer consumption of 70 gigajoules per capita per year, which means that the average European would have to cut his or her energy consumption by about half and the average resident of the US by about three quarters.”

So, instead of being able to enjoy a hot shower every day all you Americans, you’ll now confine your warm ablutions to weekends only. Same goes for air-con in summer. And heating in winter. Welcome to the New Green World Order.

%d bloggers like this: