• Category Archives co2 taxes
  • Environmentalist power trips harm poor countries

    20121205-224111.jpg

    Commentary in “The Washington Times” written by:
    David Rothbard and Craig Rucker Tuesday, December 4, 2012

    Kyoto Protocol expiration won’t provide reality check

    20121205-223548.jpg

    Illustration Global Warming by John Camejo for The Washington Times

    Last summer’s Rio+20 Conference tried unsuccessfully to rivet global attention on the latest “urgent problem” of unsustainable development. This week, another United Nations five-star-hotel convention, in Doha, Qatar, is working overtime to revive climate alarmism as a “central organizing principle” for global governance.

    The strategies remain unchanged: There are treaties, laws, regulations and higher taxes for hydrocarbon energy, all under the direction of unelected, unaccountable fanatics who insist they are saving planet Earth from ecological collapse. The agenda is likewise the same: Slash hydrocarbon use, transfer wealth, regulate economic growth and control people’s lives.

    With the Kyoto Protocol set to expire at the end of December, Qatar conventioneers are determined to forge new international agreements in the face of numerous harsh realities.

    The United States never ratified Kyoto and is not bound by its dictates, and the country’s reduced economic and political stature make it harder to play a lead role in forging a new agreement. Canada, Japan and New Zealand will not participate in a new treaty. The European Union is drowning in debt and struggling under soaring renewable-energy costs that threaten families, jobs, companies and entire industries.

    China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and other emerging markets refuse to limit the use of fossil fuels they need to build their economies and lift millions out of poverty. They say industrialized nations must agree to further greenhouse gas reductions before they will consider doing so, and holding developing countries to developed-nation standards would be inequitable.

    Poor countries increasingly understand that carbon-dioxide emission restrictions will prevent them from expanding and subject them to control by environmental activists and U.N. regulators. They also realize that massive wealth transfers from formerly rich countries — for climate-change mitigation, adaptation and reparation — are increasingly unlikely and would go mostly to bureaucrats, autocrats and kleptocrats, with little trickling down to ordinary people.

    The scientific realities are equally bad for alarmists.

    Average planetary temperatures have not risen in 16 years, even as atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have crept upward to 0.0391 percent (391 parts per million). While global-warming alarmists continue to say 2010 or, in the United States, 2012 was “the hottest on record,” actual data show that the difference between those and other allegedly “hottest years” is only a few hundredths of a degree. The 1930s still hold the record for the steamiest years in American history.

    NASA has conceded that Arctic sea-ice reductions during 2012 were caused mostly by enormous, long-lasting storms that broke up huge sections of the polar ice cap. Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice continues to expand, setting new records. The rate of sea-level rise has not been accelerating and actually may be decreasing, according to recent studies.

    Even with Hurricane Sandy, November 2012 marks the quietest long-term hurricane period since the Civil War, with only one major hurricane strike on the U.S. mainland in seven years. Large tornadoes also have fallen in frequency since the 1950s, and the 2012 season was the most peaceful on record. Only 12 tornadoes touched down in the United States in July 2012, says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shattering the July 1960 record low of 42.

    Alarmists insist that Sandy was “unprecedented” and “proof that climate change is real.” However, devastating hurricanes have struck New York, New Jersey and Canada’s Maritime Provinces many times over the centuries. Newfoundland’s deadliest hurricane killed 4,000 people in 1775, while Category 1 to 3 storms hit the provinces in 1866, 1873, 1886, 1893, 1939, 1959, 1963 and 2003. New York City was hammered by major storms in 1693, 1788, 1821, 1893, the 1938 “Long Island Express,” 1944 and 1954.

    Climate change is natural, normal, cyclical, frequent, unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic, as the Little Ice Age — lasting from the 16th century to the 19th century — certainly was for European civilization.

    These realities won’t stop the alarmists. There simply is too much money and power at stake. Tens of billions of dollars are transferred annually from taxpayers and energy users to eco-activists, scientists who hype climate disasters, regulators, carbon tax “investors” and renewable-energy and carbon-capture subsidy-seekers. They have every incentive to promote climate scares and attack anyone who voices skepticism about carbon-dioxide-driven climate-change catastrophes.

    Reality will not stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is preparing to impose new carbon-dioxide regulations. Nor will it stop Congress and the White House from viewing carbon taxes as a new source of revenue for funding stimulus and entitlement programs. That these actions would strangle our economy, kill millions of jobs and eradicate expected government revenues does not occur to them.

    The real danger is not climate change. With our economic and technological resources, we can adapt to almost any changes Mother Nature might throw at us — short of another glacial period that buries much of the world under a mile of ice.

    The real danger is treaties, laws, regulations and taxes imposed in the name of preventing global-warming catastrophes that exist only in computer models, horror movies and environmentalist press releases. These political schemes will exacerbate and perpetuate poverty, disease, unemployment and economic stagnation. That is neither just nor sustainable.

    Congress and the U.N. need to return to their founding principles, get serious about poverty alleviation and economic betterment for people everywhere and implement constructive solutions to the real problems that confront civilization.

    David Rothbard is president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where Craig Rucker is executive director.



  • UN Trillion Dollar Green Climate Fund To Cost You

    Front and center at the UN climate talks in Doha, Qatar will be the “Green Climate Fund.” The fund, which is moving into a new headquarters in South Korea, is designed to transfer massive wealth from the developed to the developing world to fund mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

    Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce or absorb green house gas emissions while adaptation refers to efforts to cope with the effects of climate change.

    The developed world has promised to pay up for the “ravages” of warming being experienced in Africa, Asia and South America. Yet, data from the UK’s Met Office shows any global warming to have “flat lined” for 16 years and NOAA data (even if you ignore temperature station siting problems) shows only three quarters of a degree Celsius of warming since the 1880s. It is hard to ask an unbiased thinker to accept that the problems of the developing world have been caused by a questionable .74 degrees Celsius of warming, rather than bad government policies marred by corruption and absence of the rule of law.

    Should the developed world fork over trillions then, to satisfy computer climate models which have done a terrible job at explaining the present, leaving little reason to trust their ability to predict the future?

    The last few UN COP meetings resulted in commitments of $30 billion in “fast start” climate finance, however, developed world nations, reeling from weak economies, have been slow to provide actual cash grants. They often chose instead to weasel out of their commitments by attributing current activities they were undergoing in any event as satisfying their obligations.

    Developing nations and climate campaigners intend to use the Doha talks next week to nail down massive new commitments and hope to take control of the funding mechanisms and governance. They hope to double fast start commitments, but in any event intend to make the new Green Climate Fund entity in South Korea independent of oversight from the World Bank or other institutions.

    Green Climate Fund meetings have been taking place behind closed doors with little oversight. Once serious funding arrives there is real danger the Fund will deteriorate from its best case scenario — which is a massive waster of funds without measurable benefit,  into a massively wasteful UN slush fund.

    Climate campaigners and developing nations want the Fund to be financed by direct transfers of taxpayer dollars from developed world economies. They demand this in the name of equity — a way for developed nations to pay for the sin of having undergone the industrial revolution.

    The U.S. and other developed nations prefer to finance the Fund more through private finance. The Fund would likely then become a vehicle for further “green investment” exporting the Solyndra model to the developing world. Nonviable projects will be created, produce no benefits, often go bust, but always a politically favored few will grow rich.

    Huge numbers are in play. Already $100 billion per year is being called inadequate. $400 billion could be the new number with $1.5 trillion per year being estimated as the combined cost of mitigation and adaptation.

    Always follow the money if you want to gain a true understanding of international climate diplomacy. There is no reasonable limit to the amounts that the global warming industry demands. The Green Climate Fund already exists, with trillions of dollars in commitments already agreed to. What remains to be seen is whether the delegates in Doha can transform vague commitments into real and immediate pain for taxpayers. That is their intention.

    What is not on the table is the one rational and responsible solution – abolish the Green Climate Fund now, while the paint is still wet on the walls of the Fund’s South Korean offices and this new bureaucracy has not yet taken firm root. The Fund should be stopped now — before the infant grows into the monster it is destined to become.



  • Is the carbon tax the death of democracy? (from Australia)

    By Kate Johnston

    [NOTE:  This article includes an interview with eminent scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the CFACT Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors.]

    On July 1st 2012, Australia joined nations around the world in their move towards a carbon economy through the implementation of a Carbon Tax, which will become an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2015. Yet the underpinning justification for this move, the science behind man-made global warming, is not even close to being settled.

    In fact, an increasingly large body of scientists and researchers are telling us the exact opposite of what the United Nations and governments around the world would have us believe. It is now evident that the science behind man-made global warming that dictates government policy is false, manipulated and corrupt and exists solely to meet a pre-determined political agenda whilst attempting to pass it off as credible science.

    Central to this article is the role of the United Nations. Their treaties, summits and bodies have been responsible for providing the framework and political will that has moved the ‘environmental movement’ to where it is today.

    This article seeks to go into more depth into current day science which overwhelmingly suggests that global warming is not caused by human Carbon Dioxide emissions. Furthermore, I will outline the role of key players on the international stage that have worked tirelessly to convince us otherwise.

    Finally, I will begin to look in more depth at what the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is and where it actually originated. As the article progresses it will become clearer that the Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme do absolutely nothing for the environment.

    Given this is the pretext used by governments for introducing carbon economy, I will attempt to convey some deeper social, political and economic influences at work here. In doing so, I hope to assist in understanding the reasons why we are moving towards a carbon economy and how this global movement abolishes our inalienable rights as human beings and basic freedoms – most of which many of us take for granted.

    United Nations Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC)

    According to the UN IPCC’s website “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”

    The UN IPCC’s findings are directly responsible for government policy being implemented around the world and this is carried out through four assessment reports produced in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. There are currently 192 countries signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – an important international framework that commits governments to tackle climate change through a reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions. There are 194 recognised countries in the world.

    Despite its global dominance, overwhelming evidence suggests that these powerful assessment reports that dictate policy and are directly responsible for the introduction of the Carbon Tax are false and full of misinformation. How is it that such a powerful tool as the United Nations with immense influence over world governments was able to progress so far in an agenda that was based on lies?

    Key Players: Maurice Strong, Al Gore, and the Chicago Climate Exchange

    One name that constantly comes up in regards to the global ‘environmental movement’ (Climate Change Industry) is Maurice Strong. Strong has been driving the climate change bandwagon since its origins back in the 70′s. Having made his fortune in oil, Maurice became very involved with the United Nations and headed many programs and summits on climate change.

    Maurice Strong fled to China in 2006 after being implicated in a million dollar bribe to himself involving the Oil for Food Program. He has been there ever since and is still very active in the ‘environmental movement’ and Chinese politics.

    To further understand how we got ourselves to where we are today, we have to understand where the myth of man-made global warming really gained traction. Al Gore’s book and ‘documentary’ – An Inconvenient Truth – was a hit worldwide, it even received not one but two Oscars! Reminds me of when Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize – what a joke!

    Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, was highly successful in instilling fear around the world that imminent climate cataclysmic events would soon follow all because of human produced Carbon Dioxide. The documentary spread like wild fire and found its way into classrooms across America. The fate of humanity was sealed; disaster would fall upon us and entire cities would be under water, unless, we acted now.

    So what else do these two powerful men have in common besides being strong proponents behind the ‘environmental movement’? It’s called The Chicago Climate Exchange and it is North America’s sole carbon exchange centre (think stock market). Yes, that’s right these men are raking in massive profits from the global Emissions Trading Scheme.

    Conflict of interest? I think so! The same men that sold us the myth of man-made global warming are the same men that sold us the ‘solution’ of a Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme and now they’re profiting off their lucrative investments which are based on lies.

    Dr. Vincent Gray: senior climate skeptic and UN IPCC expert reviewer

    Dr. Vincent Gray is an internationally eminent retired scientist with a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Cambridge, who enjoyed a long career as a coal industry researcher before spending the last 22 years of his life in climate science. He lives off his pension and receives no funding for his climate research work, hence his interest in the climate debate is not influenced by any financial ties or interests.

    He has published hundreds of scientific papers spanning many topics with several on climate appearing in peer-reviewed publications. But due to the institutional corruption and politicisation surrounding the Climate Change debate, much of his work is censored. He also authored two books: The Climate Change Delusion and Confessions of a Climate Skeptic.

    Dr Vincent Gray is an expert reviewer of all four UN IPCC assessment reports and is responsible for thousands of comments on the reports – most of which were ignored. The blatant disregard of contrary scientific findings by the UN IPCC conveys the UN IPCC political agenda at the expense of the science. Dr Vincent Gray’s comments were not peer-reviewed — an essential method used in the science world to ensure consensus and accurate scientific findings.

    In an interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, I asked him about the UN IPCC’s credibility and track record.  Among his comments:

    The 1992 Rio Conference endorsed a legally binding definition of ‘Climate Change’  that the climate is largely controlled by human-produced trace gases…. They wished to show that the globe is warming, but this cannot be done as it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth.

    I delved further, questioning the system that governs the Climate Change Industry where Dr Vincent provided some further interesting insights:

    The whole system is supported, supervised and financed by the governments who signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change….  They intimidated editors of scientific journals to control the ‘peer review’ process in their favour…. They took control of many university departments, National science organisations and media outlets…. People who tell the truth are intimidated.

    Dr Vincent’s comments on the UN IPCC reports conveys the inherent institutional corruption that occurred allowing inaccurate science of ‘man-made global warming’ to infiltrate society’s perceptions thus forming the foundation of government policy.

    Science – The Facts

    The next section of this article will be concerned with the science underpinning man-made global warming, specifically human Carbon Dioxide emissions and whether or not humans are responsible for a rise in temperatures, Global Warming and/or Climate Change.

    This key point is at the heart of the entire debate because it is on this false and misleading science that a global re-structuring of the economy, politics and society as we know it is occurring. So if the science that justifies the Carbon Tax, Emissions Trading Scheme and other massive global transformations are in fact based on lies, wouldn’t you like to know?

    Firstly, the world hasn’t actually been warming since 1998 — it’s been cooling. This explains why ‘Global Warming’ has been re-branded as ‘Climate Change’.  UN IPCC’s underpinning science purports that a rise in man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions is responsible for a rise in temperature, but this simply isn’t true. It is the other way around. It is temperatures that dictate Carbon Dioxide levels. Dr. Tim Ball, a prominent speaker on Climate change and climate skeptic, outlines this in a radio interview with Alan Jones:

    UN IPCC temperature data, from which their conclusions on man-made global warming are drawn, is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. The data is taken from weather stations from around the world and then assembled into computer models which frame our understanding of global warming today. Yet in 1990 when over 6000 weather stations worldwide were being used, three quarters dropped out, which left a clear bias towards warmer temperature recordings from the remaining active weather stations.*

    [*NOTE:  In Australia alone, hundreds of weather stations were eliminated from the GISS network in the 1990’s, though most are still operating today.   The UN IPCC uses data from only one mainland rural Australian site that has continuous data from 1930. (Source: Watts Up With That?)]

    This suggests that the recent warming that we know of is connected to the methods of recording and not an actual increase in temperature. More details about how this crucial data is flawed can be found within this report from Science and Public Policy.

    Dr. Vincent Courtillot, Professor of Geophysics at University Paris Diderot, formed a research group with other established scientists from around Europe to determine the cause of temperature fluctuation. After requesting UN IPCC’s data that forms their theory of man-made Global Warming, he was denied; therefore he and his group had to re-collate the data independently.

    His research found that temperature change is determined solely by Solar activity. Yes, that’s right!  The sun dictates temperature, not Carbon Dioxide levels, of which humans have a minuscule influence compared to what is produced naturally by nature. Their scientific findings are well documented and are available on YouTube.

    And what about the global rise in sea levels devastating coastal cities around the world? Well science around the world shows no change in Global Sea levels, with Tidal Gauge stations recording an average of 18cm Global Sea Level Rise every century with no variation recorded during increased temperatures. That’s 1.8mm a year.

    This information can be viewed from a joint report by the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change, a consortium of independent scientists established to analyse published and peer-reviewed literature available on global warming from around the world producing a report that directly responds to the UN IPCC’s reports. Another excellent research paper on sea level rise around the world is available at www.galileomovement.com.au.

    A 1000 international Scientists who dissent and disagree with man-made global warming speak out in the Climate Depot Report. One scientist, Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center said:  “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”

    The information is available for anyone to read. We have been lied to. Global warming is a scam. But why has the United Nations gone to such great lengths to have us believe otherwise? Is an Emissions Trading Scheme so important? Or is there something else going on?

    The carbon tax and emissions trading scheme

    The initial step of the Carbon Tax in the move towards a Carbon Economy is underway [in Australia and elsewhere]. If left unchallenged, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be introduced in 2015 paving the way for the new Global Carbon Economy. This integrated global economic system is based on trading and control of carbon emissions.

    This is how it works.  Companies are designated with an amount of carbon credits in line with the government’s cap of carbon emissions that they’re allowed to emit. Companies that emit less are left with carbon credits which can be sold for a profit. Alternatively, if they use all their credits they purchase more carbon credits from companies around the world on the carbon exchange market.

    The idea is to give an economic incentive to polluters to reduce their carbon footprint. As the world moves closer to their goal of reducing emissions as outlined at the United Nations Kyoto protocol, we are told that we are helping the environment by limiting pollution. But again, the incentive for polluters only occurs if it is profitable.

    There is much criticism about the effectiveness of this system where it is currently implemented in Europe and has nothing short of failed. Fraud and corruption are rife and emissions have not yet been reduced – and even if they were it wouldn’t actually have any effect on the climate change anyway!

    Eventually the Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon credits will be transferred to individuals in the form of a carbon card, much like a credit card we use today only it is for our energy consumption. Individuals will be designated with an annual carbon allowance to meet their energy, fuel and travel needs. The concept remains the same as the Emissions Trading Scheme, only the individual is designated carbon credits to be exchanged on the Carbon Stock Exchange markets.

    Plans in the UK for the carbon trading credit cards are well underway and will follow around the world soon enough. As nations attempt to meet their emission reduction goals, individual carbon allowances will also be capped and decrease over time.

    This system of carbon trading and carbon economy is in the hands of the major banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. Personally, I don’t feel too good about handing over the reigns of control of many aspects of my life to be regulated by the banks and governments. How do you feel about that?

    Social transformation

    As we slowly move into a carbon currency, we replace our current price based system with one that deals with energy, which will essentially lead to a cashless society. We are already seeing this happening voluntarily around the world. As people increasingly start to use their credit cards for all their transactions, money in circulation will eventually be replaced with purely electronic transactions and energy allowances or individual carbon credits.

    This was on the Bilderberg 2012′s Agenda with the move towards electronic I.D. cards already happening – an essential step towards a cashless society. Every detail about us is recorded on these cards through micro chip technology. But keep in mind, individuals in a cashless society hands over all their rights to the government and banks that control the system.

    Another worrying aspect of the ‘environmental movement’ in the name of ‘saving the planet’ is the United Nations’ Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development, adopted by more than 178 governments around the world at the United Nations Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

    Agenda 21 is a detailed global action plan already adopted and being implemented by governments around the world which openly calls for population reduction, abolition of property rights and a complete re-structuring of populations around the world into high-volume smart cities.

    This is not a joke; it is a United Nations international treaty and a working document that governments are already implementing on both national and local level. I will dedicate an entire article to this issue in the coming weeks.

    The coming age of Technocracy

    But probably of most interest about the Emissions Trading Scheme and the move towards a carbon economy is its startling parallels with Technocracy. Technocracy is a social movement and alternative political system that gained quite a bit of traction in the US in the 1930′s during the Great Depression.

    Technocracy is a social, economic and political system based on individual’s energy consumption and is controlled wholly by experts and scientists – not elected leaders like the system we live in today. Instead of people being rewarded with money for their work, they would be given energy allowances.

    One key aspect of Technocracy is the Energy Distribution Card. Sounds familiar? Well it should, the idea is being rolled out around the world now all in the name of fighting man-made global warming yet the idea originated long before man-made global warming even existed. Are we moving towards a Technocratic society?

    Central to Technocracy is a system that allows for the measurement of energy consumption of both individuals and households. The political system cannot be implemented otherwise. This may sounds familiar to some of you as the Smart Grid and Smart Meters currently being rolled out around the world.

    This technology is being hooked up to households around the world and infrastructure is being designed that will allow Smart Grids to be integrated into a much larger global system of measuring energy production and consumption.

    A brilliant question by Patrick Wood: “Who is orchestrating this?”

    So now what?

    All of the ‘solutions’ I have outlined in this article are being sold to the world via media and education in the name of ‘saving the environment’. But the very same entities responsible for creating the ‘solutions’, are the ones responsible for the problem to begin with and pose a serious threat towards truly sustainable solutions.

    The state of technology and resources existing today to transform our society towards a truly sustainable global community are infinite. All that stands in our way are the political, economic and social systems currently in place. But we must remember that they only exist because we allow them too.

    One way or another a fundamental transformation of our global society is underway. The only question we need ask ourselves is do we want to be a part of the alternative and co-create a sustainable global community together? Or do we want to let the bankers, politicians and technocrats do it for us under the guise of ‘sustainability’ whilst moving towards a world where every aspect of our lives are governed and controlled.

    Freedom as we know it will no longer exist and along with our freedom will go the mechanisms that are now available to us to protect it.

    Things are moving fast, faster than we can comprehend. It’s time to make your choice. By doing nothing, you are complicit to their plan. By remaining indifferent you allow this repressive and controlling global system to be built right in front of your very eyes.

    But by saying no, educating yourself and beginning to actively participate in opposing this system you make room for the new fair, equal and just paradigm. A world to be built by the collective, by all of us. An alternative system that we can all be proud to call our own. We don’t have much time left, we must act and we must act now.

    Kate Johnston is an activist and writer originally from Melbourne, Australia.