People send me stuff. This one had an IP address originating in Durban today, but it lists as a proxy server, so the person may/may not be there. From WUWT Tips and Notes:
I am writing from the COP17 negotiations in Durban, anonymously because I can’t be identified due to working for a government here. Your readers might like to know that Oxfam is writing the negotiating strategy for Bolivia on financing. They are proposing a massive tax on shipping (bizarre for a land-locked country!). Oxfam have even got their consultant actually speaking on behalf of Bolivia in the negotiating sessions.
His name is Antonio Hill and he is listed under the Bolivian delegation in the official list of participants. Their proposal could have a bad impact on the shipping industry and global trade, ironically hitting shipments to least developed countries the most – try and expose this!!
There seems to be support for this elsewhere, though the Boliva issue may be rumors, from Green Times – COP17: Financing Climate Justice:
Oxfam, WWF and the International Chamber of Shipping, on the other hand, have proposed a global shipping tax in order to ensure that there isn’t “carbon leakages” from sectors not regulated under a less than global taxation mechanism. The Climate Action Network consisting of over 700 NGOs is demanding that the GCF is funded by such public sources of finances, as well as other possible sources of funding, such as special drawing rights, but, discussions on sources may be shot down before they get out of the blocks.
…
However, with discussion on the Green Climate Fund and long-term financing set to reopen today, that disagreement may come back to haunt the global community. If Saudi Arabia and America decide to reopen discussion on the report, this might stall decisions on climate finance for quite some time to come, and delay meaningful action on it. Furthermore, with rumors circulating that the Bolivian Alliance for the America’s and a few other countries might want to reopen the document as well, the threat of a can of worms opening up that will take forever to close, is quite real.
Here’s Antonio Hill from COP16:
Here’s how the tax would work, it would raise bunker fuel prices by 10% – follow the money, it looks like a seafaring gravy train:
Here’s the briefing prepared by Oxfam in PDF form: WWFBinaryitem24585
Tim Gore and Mark Lutes are listed in the properties of the document as the authors.
Tim Gore is from Oxfam Great Britain and Mark Lutes is from WWF. Here’s video of Tim Gore from COP16:
And here’s Lutes saying “A deal on greenhouse gas emissions from the shipping and aviation sectors could form the basis of a deal at Durban, says Mark Lutes of WWF”, which is unfortunately behind a paywall.
I find it very very troubling that NGO’s get to write tax laws to foist on private enterprise. Nobody elected the WWF nor Oxfam. Theses NGO’s are circumventing the democratic process.
These people have no business writing tax law proposals, especially when it appears part of the larder goes back to them. This is so wrong on so many levels.
It would act as a sort of tariff raising costs of imports. I can see how some would see it as a means of slowing down “carbon leakage”, but I don’t think the Chinese would like it. After all, it would make their exports more expensive.
I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that most people only care about an influx of cash into their pockets – no matter how many others are impoverished in the process. And “non governmental charities” are the perfect sheep’s clothing for these parasites.
“Agreement to apply a carbon price to shipping can reduce both emissions and…..”
How exactly will this reduce emissions? Will there be fewer ships hauling cargo or making fewer runs?
Hmmm, no mention of compensation to developing countries for loss of exports. People will still buy imported oil at a premium, but what about all of the other products that the developed world imports – produce, toys, electronics, textiles?
“…This is so wrong on so many levels…”
But very profitable. I see they have been learning from the banks, who over here have just been caught selling investment bonds which tie up your capital for years – to 83-year-olds in care homes…
Nice work if you can get it.
Is that more photoshopped smoke?
All these unelected NGO’s accepting the corrupt science and trying to lay down “ethical” changes that rob from the poor and stuff the pockets of … proliferating greenie activists and greenie bureaucrats … noooooooooooo …
What a sea of corruption the whole COP process is… perhaps not surprising with a name suggestive of coprophagia … an acronym that is not even connected to the climate…
this whole thing has always been about the money…. money /funding for scientist to come up with theories (firstly) then the rest follows. Withdraw the funding and the entire pack of cards crumbles. It never was about saving the planet it has always been money and politics – power and ego. NOT having a ‘go’ at you COKE……. but sure wish sheeple could recognise this for what it is….. and get rid of the power mongers please
I can see a massive inflation spiral beig triggered if these fools get their way. Since the bulk of Britain’s food comes in by sea, I am sure the average Brit is goig to be really thrilled by the increase in the cost of feeding himself – but will they realise why? I doubt it, because no one will tell them – or they will blame “Europe.”
It will hit every economy in the world raising costs across the board. I wonder if Oxfam have realised that the reduction in disposable incomes will hit their funding? That’s about the only way you’ll get the attention of Oxfam, WWF, Greenpeace et al – stop donating to their ’causes.’ I did, years ago, after watching them descend on a famine zone, check into five star hotels, unload new gas guzzling 4x4s from a ship and then start holding press conferences and “media events.” Two years later a large part of the “aid” was still lying in a warehouse near the capital of the country concerned, undistributed and rotting …
Cut their funding, and cut it now.
Is that first screenshot of the ship with a lot of black smoke coming out the funnel photoshopped by any chance?
Until they remain tax free, they will push for raising taxes.
It’ as simple as that.
He is listed as a delegate for Bolivia. Do a Google for Antonio Hill COP17, theres a delegate pdf link.
I’m not in favor of backdoor dealings like this but let’s not pretend that the multinationals haven’t been doing exactly this for decades.
These people are all about the money. They cry alarm in every way and the cure is always money. We all know that, it there was a bunker fuel tax, a lot of the money would be lost in translation, processing, and movement before it got anywhere near the countries which are supposed to have “climate change” damages.
I would love to see a requirement that these countries have to prove damages before they receive any funds. As we are cooling, global warming damage is patently impossible.
I recently found a paper that points out that nitrogen and oxygen gas are essentially white gases in that they cannot absorb or emit radiation in the visible or IR ranges. They pick up warmth from the warmed planet surface and a tiny bit from the water vapor and CO2. N2 and O2 have a large problem—they cannot release energy as radiation. Energy transfer into and out of CO2 and water vapor works both ways. N2 and O2 can feed energy to CO2 and H2O which can readily release this energy as IR. Thus, CO2 and H2O can serve was energy leaks for the atmosphere, releasing IR energy that can be easily lost to space. Net effect is that CO2 and H2O cool the atmosphere, not warm it.
So, not only is CO2 plant food and is a trace gas that cannot warm the atmosphere, but CO2 serves more readily as a heat to IR converter than an IR to heat converter. Thus, it makes sense that when climate has a temperature peak and CO2 starts to cook out of the oceans, the heat peak usually reverses a bit before CO2 reaches a peak as CO2 is serving to drain off the energy from the atmosphere.
Now, the panic artists will quickly decide that CO2 is going to cause the next ice age and thus we need to control it anyhow, BUT, CO2 is plant food that also makes plants more temperature tolerant, both to cold and warm, and higher CO2 would accelerate and maximize our crops with improved growth during the growing season.
Bottom-line, controlling CO2 is just plain stupid. A COP16 representative stated that people have to get used to the fact that these meetings have nothing to do with climate and are all about wealth redistribution from those who earn it to those who did not—how in heck is that fair?—and control and power.
These actions almost leave me speechless. Undemocratic on soooo many levels. If they want to change the tax laws, why don’t they run for office and do the deed legitimately? What this appears to me is that no longer are these groups running just as NGO’s. They are getting their fingers into actually governing third world countries. This has “disaster” written all over it, but would make a good James Bond movie plot in the meantime.
Is Tim Gore talking about women needing climate money most. I really don’t have a clue why he is targeting women. Is this just a ploy to apeal to women.
Fenton Communications believes they can do anything. For example, the circle between Center for American Progress ( people who produce the Think Progress site), a Fenton Communications client, and the current administration in the White House is now complete.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69784.html
So what we have is Fenton orchestrating this push for legislation and now have an operative in the White House.
I am telling you people this has nothing to do whatsoever with science. As much as I admire McIntyre and Condon, if they attempt to fight this using science they are sadly about to be disarmed. The “greenies” have already won that debate. The really no longer need science at all to back them up. It is now “established fact” to millions of new voters reaching the age of franchise in countries around the world. Now they are focused on the implementation of their policies that the scientific debate (now practically over, as far as they are concerned) allowed.
This is not about science, this is about taking your money, establishing global policy, and setting up other “progressives” in lucrative investments that these policies provide. And the sickest thing of all is that it is going to do huge HARM to billions of people AND the environment! They are doing exactly the opposite of what they would have people believe. It is absolutely Orwellian.
Fenton has positioned things so that he can do pretty much whatever he wants. He controls the message of the NGOs, he controls the message of the UN, he now controls the message out of the White House of the United States.
This is now about PR and marketing, it is not at all about science. As far as future generations of voters are concerned, the science issue is “settled”.
Confused, is taxing shipping supposed to reduce the amount of bunker fuel used? No credits for scrubbers? Wouldn’t increasing shipping costs lead to less development in the 3rd world, sustaining poverty and consumption of resources?
CAGW or SCAGW (hmm, supercatastrophicexpialidocious?) is invented out of whole cloth. It does not exist. It is not happening. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything out of the ordinary is going on except the diversion of billions in tax money.
Antonio Hill is listed on the Official Bolivian delegation and his affiliation is listed as Oxfam (page 17, section 1)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/misc02p01.pdf
The involvement of the International Council of Shipping as a oartner is also rather puzzling:
Echoes from Durban: Shipping industry to submit to a carbon tax?
http://blog.carbontalks.ca/archives/549
http://www.marisec.org/
JustMEinT Musings says:
December 6, 2011 at 12:31 pm
this whole thing has always been about the money. money /funding for scientist to come up with theories (firstly) then the rest follows. Withdraw the funding and the entire pack of cards crumbles. It never was about saving the planet it has always been money and politics power and ego. NOT having a go at you
COKE. but sure wish sheeple could recognise this for what it is.. and get rid of the power mongers please
—
SPOT ON! It has ALWAYS been about the Climate Ca$h – from the climate $cience re$earch to the advocacy group$.
For example, let’s see how many climate modelers would be willing to give up their power-hungry supercomputing centers where they run their models, so as to reduce THEIR carbon footprint. Just turn them off. Completely. Yeah – like that will ever happen…just ask Gavin and Kevin…
NGOs have wormed their way into writing all kinds of environmental laws. Just think back to the Waxman-Markey days where Mr. Waxman managed to pull that 1000+ page bill out of his drawer in just a few days. And if they can’t influence laws and regulations when they are drafted, they then sue EPA to get what they want. The NGOs then negotiate settlements with EPA. BTW, part of the settlement is usually payment of their legal fees, so they can turn around and sue again.
And Oxfam’s message is managed by whom? I will give you a hint:
You guys a fighting a very large machine. But it can all come crashing down quite quickly if enough sunlight is shown onto it.
The above quote was from one of the bios of the leadership of “Groundswell”, another one of those astroturf organizations that just trades people around as they all rotate among the various other astroturf organizations. They could easily all be one organization but that is the point … the one thing tying them all together is Fenton which is really the one organization.
I’m delighted with this turn of events and I am even more excited waiting for the first nations to sign on the dotted line to enact this shipping tax. Then come home to their respective nations and sell this tax to their respective legislatures and their already overtaxed citizens. That should be fun – a 10% tax on everything under the sun for every human being on planet earth.
Brought to YOU by the “green” lobby and their NGOs. Oh, yeah, that aught to sell –
Oxfam was originally founded in Oxford, UK, in 1942 as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief by a group of Quakers, social activists, and Oxford academics.
What is that expression about sticking to what you are good at? Or maybe there is not enough Famine to go around all the NGO’s…
Yes, you have unelected bureaucrats at the UN developing international “regulations” which are then promulgated globally for implementation by unelected bureaucrats such as EPA in the US, CARB in California, DEFRA in the UK and a myriad of other national, provincial/state, and local government bureaus globally and not a single one of those regulations gets voted on by a body representing the people.
You know if they raise such a levy enough, someone will get the idea of using nuclear reactors to power merchant ships. Wouldn’t OXFAM and WWF throw a complete conniption over that direct result of their ill-advised attempts to redistribute wealth.
It’s evident that the CAGW organizations such as IPCC, and their supporters are very much concerned with the future “safety” of humanity. They are eerily reminiscent of VIKI and her army of NS5’s in the precautionary tale from the movie “I, Robot”.
“VIKI decided that in order to protect humanity as a whole, “some humans must be sacrificed” and “some freedoms must be surrendered” as “you charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your earth, and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction”. In light of this understanding of the Three Laws, VIKI is controlling the NS-5s to lead a global robotic takeover, justifying her actions by calculating that fewer humans will die due to the rebellion than the number that dies from mankind’s self-destructive nature.”
“My logic is undeniable.”
Aside from the carbon justification, a shipping tax would actually be good for most countries and bad for China. It would be especially good for America, since it would tilt the playing field against outsourced manufacturing to some extent.
I just read something quite disturbing regarding the overall plan of what the UN has in mind:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/12/06/more-u-n-insanity-paid-for-by-u-s-taxpayers/
“These people have no business writing tax law proposals, especially when it appears part of the larder goes back to them. This is so wrong on so many levels.”
Sorry, but no. Anyone is entitled to write a “proposal”. Whether or not that proposal is acted upon is the sole fault of the elected officials.
from WIKI:
Oxfam GB (Great Britain)
Oxfam GB, with 5,955 employees worldwide[2] in 2008, and with a total income of £299.7 million. Oxfam GB’s head office is located in Cowley, Oxford and has offices and programmes in over 70 countries in 8 regions.[2]
From 2007 to 2009, Oxfam GB has been recognized as one of Britain’s Top Employers[3] by CRF.[4]
*****************************
That works out to £50,327.45 per employee. Self appointed pony tail politicians feathering their own nests in the name of famine prevention. The best cure for famine is a world economy that pulls people out of poverty. Carbon is the cure for hunger. As in Carbohydrate. More CO2 means more productive agriculture. End of Story.
Knuts says: December 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Is that first screenshot of the ship with a lot of black smoke coming out the funnel photoshopped by any chance?
Clouds behind it are white. Perhaps this was just a lucky photo of a rare black belch. I’ve never seen ship funnel emissions that colour, have you? and even if it was common, it would be sooooo easy to clean up.
Maybe someone should tell “The Round Table of international shipping associations”
http://www.marisec.org/shippingfacts/home/
They say …
“In the longer term, the fact that shipping is the most fuel efficient and carbon friendly form of commercial transport should work in favour of an even greater proportion of world trade being carried by sea.”
http://www.marisec.org/shippingfacts/worldtrade/volume-world-trade-sea.php
Also the image is probably real, original source here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robven/1953413479/in/set-72157606893195322
Fenton Communications = George Soros.
Whilst I am not and never have been in the camp that goes on about World Wide Government, I have been noting the activities of George Soros.
He wants to be Goldfinger.
Turns out the “International Chamber of Shipping” is the same as http://www.marisec.org/
http://www.marisec.org/pressreleases.htm#11-29%20Nov
http://www.shippingandco2.org/
Wouldn’t have expected an industry to try to sign up for an additional tax on business.
Some people asked if the smoke was photoshopped.
Tools to examine it suggest no.
1. I found the original here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robven/1953413479/
2. EXIF viewer suggests that the camera and date match
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2130%2F1953413479_27757193ef_o.jpg
3. PSkiller shows only basic manipulation, such as cropping or resizing.
http://www.pskiller.com/
submitted image: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2130/1953413479_27757193ef_o.jpg
Theres no evidence of retoruching according to PS killer. The image is probably when the ship fired up its boilers for the first time after being idle while unloading.
I had a most interesting experience a couple of years ago, with a student whose age was about 72. He had served in the merchant marine for many years and was a cranky old sailor. His specialty was the evaluation of the bunker oil that was loaded onto the ships. One has to be very very careful with these huge engines not to destroy seals and surfaces and the wrong products in the oil could cost 100k+ in repairs and downtime. What I was so amazed at was the amazing sophistication involved in the burning of these oils! But he was spot on when describing how ANY taxation on shipping would affect the world economic situation: The wealthier the nation, the less the impact, the poorer the nation the more devastating it will be. (WRT cost of imported goods) But the real rub to all this is IF any world shipping tax were implemented who would oversee and collect it? Not one person wants that kind of money going to an international oversight group! We talking minimally two levels of bureaucracy above any given nation’s government. Care to venture how honest and well run such an agency would be?
I am not surprised.
While organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an
important part of the UNFCCC process through major groups such as NRDC,
EDF/ED, WWF and Greenpeace, they have operated within the structure as
constructive participants in the policy-setting process, along with
industry. At The Hague, this “inside” role was supplemented by hundreds of
young, relatively na�ve demonstrators brought in specifically to energize
the environmental presence and confront the process. Even some within the
ranks of the more established participants — while disavowing the takeover
of the negotiating room — saw fit to publicly offer Minister Pronk and the
UNFCCC Secretariate a veiled threat of “Seattle” if the process failed to
deliver.
It is pretty ironic that Fentonites/Oxfam/WWF etc now operate in exactly the same way as all those ‘horrible’ global corporations they used to so despise.
As long as it is still cheaper to produce in China and ship across the oceans, not a single molecule of CO2 less will go in the air. But of course everyone will pick up the tab for the tax when buying those products. Transferring production back to the consumer countries is unlikely to improve the CO2 situation. First you have to set up the factories again, then import most of the raw materials. Meanwhile China destabilizes under the breakdown of its economy, hundreds of thousands of people die in the riots and the crackdown of the communist regime that puts all hope for democracy for 1/6 of the world’s population far out of reach. The same activists who pushed for the tax then accuse western governments of turning a blind eye to the situation.
Make world trade more expensive. Just what we need when the world may be on the brink of recession.
Kill off all those entrepeneurial people in Africa producing fruit, etc for Europe. Replace same with people living off NGO aid handouts.
All makes perfect sense…to an NGO.
The graph shows 25 billion recovered from the tax, 10 billion to developing countries, 10 billion to the Green Climate Fund, that leaves 5 billion for administration costs and the shipping industry. It is no wonder the shipping industry is behind this. For a healthy chunk of five billion I could probably get behind it also.
Bangladesh 40 million and South Africa 200 million will probably get the attention of those countries, and that is just their rebate on top of their share of the GCF.
The Great Karnak sez, “I forsee a sudden increase in nuclear powered tankers and container ships… maybe.”
This can be verified by checking inside the mayonaise jar on the doorstep of Funk and Wagnalls.
(The Great Karnak always bets on the Law of Unintended Consequences.)
Most freighters use diesel-cycle internal combustion powerplants these days. They can run off of either distillate (“diesel”) or residual (“bunker” which is almost always the source of the heavy black smoke) fuel oils, and depending on local maritime regulations, will often do both. In the US for example it’s illegal for ships to burn bunker within a certain distance of the coastline, forcing them to switch to diesel when approaching port. Diesel can still make lots of black smoke when starting or under heavy load though.
In that case NGOs such as Oxfam, WWF, Greenpeace etc should have their tax exempt staus revoked.
Their revenue streams and schemes, including the donations they solocit from the general public, should be exposed to the same corporate tax rate as other business enterprises.
Further, donations by individuals and corporates should no longer be tax deductible.
DMarshall says:
December 6, 2011 at 12:42 pm
I’m not in favor of backdoor dealings like this but let’s not pretend that the multinationals haven’t been doing exactly this for decades.
Which ones and how?
Patrick. Thank you for the Forbes article. I am also starting to realise that there is a large body of the converted who no longer listen to argument, scientific or otherwise. The CC lobby and in fact the whole UN/greenie sector show their agenda much more clearly now than ever before. It is not at all clear how conscious some of the followers actually are, but the insidious nature of this global tax/fund and targetting of taxees is abominable. We should all be chasing our elected representatives to remove all funding from these semi-autonomous, etc, groups….not least anything to do with the UN. It starts to look like a war for hearts and minds, but if the minds of so many are persuaded that CO2 is an issue, given the evidence, we are a long way away from a resolution. Don’t give up the fight!
These people are insane. We need more trade, not less.
Trade is the most important way to prosperity. But that’s exactly what they don’t want for us…
The Cause is sacred, people are expendable. Sick.
“WWF and Oxfam pushing for a shipping tax at Durban COP17 – since when do NGO’s get to write tax laws?”
Here in the EU NGOs are regularly targetted for ‘Public Consultations’ as well as assistance with the ‘science’.
First of all the EU distorts the ‘science’ by only funding those scientists who support the ‘consensus’ view then it funds the NGOs to lobby the EU on EU preferred policies – it’s propaganda by proxy, giving the impression that EU laws are being brought in by popular demand.
“The period of the eu’s financing of the wwf policy office happens largely to coincide with the period covered by the East Anglia e-mails. wwf and wwf officials make several appearances in the e-mails. The general tenor of the organization’s interaction with the scientists is unmistakable.
In October 1997, for instance, just two months before the Kyoto climate conference, Andrew Kerr of the wwf Climate Change Campaign can be found berating the Japanese government for proposing “scandalous” emissions reduction targets for industrialized nations: i.e., more realistic, less misleading, and more equitable targets than those that would ultimately be adopted. “It is vital that European governments reject the proposal in no uncertain terms and urge Japan to at least support the eu standpoint,” Kerr writes. In July 1999, Dr. A. Barrie Pittock of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (csiro) can be found well-nigh pleading with Mike Hulme to alter climate change scenarios being prepared by Hulme on a wwf grant. “Our main concern . . . is your use of the 95% confidence limits of natural climatic variability as some sort of threshold for change,” Dr. Pittock writes.”
“..it would appear that the very practice of eu-funding of ngos has helped to create a sort of pseudo civil society, amidst the din of whose protests and press releases and media campaigns the interests of actual civil society have become all but inaudible.”
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/environment/propaganda-by-proxy-how-the-eu-funds-green-lobby-groups
To be sure, they have balls in their proposals. Insanity?
The good thing that happens at these COP meetings is that the various green schemes are publicly exposed.
I spent most of my life as a ‘green’ but now the entire movement has been hijacked by a bunch of extremists. They have acquired too much influence, power, and money to be trusted again.
AussiePete says:
December 6, 2011 at 2:25 pm
In that case NGOs such as Oxfam, WWF, Greenpeace etc should have their tax exempt staus revoked.
Their revenue streams and schemes, including the donations they solocit from the general public, should be exposed to the same corporate tax rate as other business enterprises.
Further, donations by individuals and corporates should no longer be tax deductible.
==================
I would strongly agree with this.
On the subject of ‘circumventing the democratic process’, there’s an interesting piece at http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/6/un-seeks-to-undermine-foi.html.
“UN seeks to undermine FOI”
The first coment could be significant.
Well, I learned that women are more affected by climate change than men.
My theory is that this is due to women having a greater proportion of surface area to volume. Perhaps I can get some funding to measure and study this?
In Canada it is different for the NGOs… 🙂
http://jinnysims.ndp.ca/post/cida-funding-delays
[Opposition rabble]
“It turns out that for Conservatives, streamlining just means delaying. Fifty groups have waited for over three months to hear whether they are getting the funding. Critical programs in developing countries are being cut.
Why is the minister putting these important development projects at risk”
[Canadian Government Response]
“Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to assistance that is effective, focused and accountable.
We ensure each project is an effective use of taxpayers’ dollars. The amount of time to review proposals varies, depending on the overall number of applications and the size, complexity and risks associated with each proposal.”
[More Opposition rabble]
“Mr. Speaker, these people are trying to help the world’s poorest, and all they get from the government is doublespeak and off-base attacks”
[Canadian Government Response]
“No organization is entitled to receive taxpayers’ dollars indefinitely.
Our responsibility is to Canadian taxpayers. It requires us to ensure that the official development assistance is more effective, more focused and more accountable.”
—–
The NGOs hate the Canadian Government 🙂
So, there are 700 NGOs believing the importance of the Green Climate Fund. Who’d-a-thunk?
With 700 of them, if they spent a few years at home they could fund it through donations plus the money they saved.
Bill Marsh asks “How exactly will this reduce emissions?”
If you look at their figures for amount of tax raised, I suspect that you will find them based on the tax causing no reduction at all in shipping emissions. With 40% of the tax raised going into their own pockets, they wouldn’t want a reduction.
And as Leigh says, “Anyone is entitled to write a “proposal”“.
I’ve been arguing that rhetorical point for some time now:
Since when did Greenpeace, WWF and the Sierra Fund become our government? What gives them the right to tell us how to live? What to eat? What to where? What to think? Totalitarians all.
Second, is that ship-pic another photoshop effort? I call it climate porn.
This is socialism gone mad. If countries want to elect socialists to re-distribute their wealth in their own country, well, that;s their look out. But here we have a scam where everyone in the world gets fleeced (except the greenie favourites – you can bet your boots there will be no rebates for anyone unless they sign up to green envy).
These eco-fascists are always trying to work outside properly accountable representative systems of governments. Where are the statesmen who will denounce these socialists in their national parliaments and stiffen the backbones of people to resist these thieves.
I can’t see any essential difference between pirates who prey on shipping and these ecofascists who want to extort money from shipping.
Aussie says:
December 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm
“Fenton Communications = George Soros.
Whilst I am not and never have been in the camp that goes on about World Wide Government, I have been noting the activities of George Soros.
He wants to be Goldfinger.”
Maybe 007 needs to have a chat with the fellow? Oh no, thats right. They are allies……
Crosspatch comes up with QOTW:
supercatastrophicexpialidocious
Not exactly. Fenton Communications is George Soros’ PR firm, yes, in that FC is the PR firm for many “progressive” operations that Soros funds. Fenton can get an organization hooked up with Soros funds but it is really difficult because most of these “progressive” organizations are started by Fenton to begin with. It is pretty hard to crank one up yourself. Fenton has it down to a process. Most of these progressive organizations were created using Fenton resources in the first place.
David says:
December 6, 2011 at 2:38 pm
DMarshall says:
December 6, 2011 at 12:42 pm
I’m not in favor of backdoor dealings like this but let’s not pretend that the multinationals haven’t been doing exactly this for decades.
Which ones and how?
————————-
I agree David. Since now we can identify it and we have evidence of under handed activity we should do something about it. Where’s the people’s protection? Keep coming Rep Issa.
Don’t let the SOBs wear you down.
And if you subtract those affiliated with Fenton and Futerra you would probably be down to something 8.
Does anyone else wonder if the smoke coming out of the ship is a PS product?
And here’s Lutes saying “A deal on greenhouse gas emissions from the shipping and aviation sectors could form the basis of a deal at Durban, says Mark Lutes of WWF”, which is unfortunately behind a paywall.
I found a “WWF Cancun Position Paper on International Transportation,” June 2011, Mark Lutes is contact person:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_position_paper_bunker_finance_june_2011_final.pdf
Download before it disappears. ☺
Title: International transport: turning an emissions problem into a finance opportunity
Highlight from the Summary:
A promising approach in the shipping sector is a universal mechanism with a rebate for developing countries to neutralize any economic burden.
In the real world, a shipper in a developing country will be fiscally penalized for their fuel purchases, that money will go away and never be seen again by the shipper, but there is money sent to that developing country’s government therefore the WWF thinks it will “neutralize any economic burden.” That will only happen if the government themselves are the shipper, there are no privately-owned shippers. Draw your own conclusions.
Or maybe it was taken 50 years ago, and bought from a stock-photo agency.
Patrick says:
December 6, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I just read something quite disturbing regarding the overall plan of what the UN has in mind:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/12/06/more-u-n-insanity-paid-for-by-u-s-taxpayers/
==========================================================================
It’s why our national politicians completely disregard their electorates – they’re all angling for their place at the UN high table.
UK PM Blair was amply rewarded when he stood down from the UK govt. – the guy who took the UK to war on a lie was made the UN Middle-East peace envoy. Now he’s reputed to be on a £5m/year income and flits around the world advising govts on ‘Climate change’ of all things!!
For a while it was rumoured that our next PM Gordon Brown, who trashed the UK economy, was to be made Chief of the IMF. Currently our three main party leaders PM Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all support pro UN/EU policies so that it doesn’t matter which party we vote for we end up with the same policies – they certainly are not acting in the interests of the UK.
Recently all three party leaders pulled out a three line whip to stop MPs voting to allow UK citizens to have a referendum on membership of the EU. (Many UK citizens feel they were tricked into agreeing to join what has now evolved into the EU and no longer want to be part of it). Since then the EU has replaced elected politicians in two European govts., Greece and Italy, with their own appointees and are currently looking to stage an effective coup combining all 17 eurozone countries under what many see as a deliberately engineered monetary ‘crisis’ to enforce fiscal and political union.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-15/no-stopping-technocrats-rule-as-debt-crisis-brings-down-europe-governments.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/06/eurozone-shakeup-voting-rights-confidential-paper
Meanwhile Obama is busy trashing the US economy and Gillard in Australia is totally ignoring the electorate and imposing a punitive carbon tax – but no doubt they too are looking to their future long term career prospects!!!
Here’s a link to an oxfam PDF with that global redistribution of wealth diagram:
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bn-out-of-the-bunker-050911-en.pdf
Re previous post:
Yes, it says “Cancun” in the pdf’s title, not Durban. Check the Properties of the file and complain to Mark Lutes, the author. The next to last section is “A decision in Durban” so the document clearly relates to Durban.
And I love the very last line of the Conclusion:
Emissions problem or revenue opportunity? The choice is yours….
I’m glad to see the WWF has their priorities in order. They highlight nicely against those of people who really are concerned about the environment and all of humanity.
How about if these globe-trotters were made to travel by freighter? They used to take on a half-dozen passengers, to pick up a little spare change.
Who is funding WWF?
How about some disclosure.
Kyoto was the direct cause of increased CO2 emissions from shipping by transferring energy intensive industries like steel and cement from consuming nations to China and other developing countries. Anyone with an elementary grasp of economics would know this would occur.
Similarly, a tax on shipping fuel will increase fuel consumption as ships are rerouted to places where the tax is not collected or evaded.
When the goal is (and has always been) to tax the air we breathe, any ship will do.
There is as much chance of the Climate Change Industry of imposing a carbon tax on the International Transport Industry as imposing restrictions on the mating of consenting polar bears in the wild.
I will believe it when I see all Panamanian registered ships never ever over-loaded, never ever losing containers, never ever leaking oil, never ever hitting reefs and paying their crews internationally agreed salaries.
I will also believe it if on Jan 01 2012 China Airlines purchases European Carbon Trading Certificates for the emissions incurred on its first flight from Beijing to London.
anyone know how to make it an issue in Bolivia that an obviously not-Bolivian Antonio Hill of Oxfam was made a member of the Bolivian delegation?
I realize that’s a small sideshow in one context, and that Bolivia has a hard-left govt, but still, making it an embarrassment for them in the media might discourage that sort of thing in the future.
NGO activists have enough influence on media and govts without letting them get away with being in official delegations to get access to meetings etc.
Last week Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez was talking about this tax. It would seem like he put Bolivia up to do the advance job. They are all in it for the money, what else?
“Since when do NGOs get to write tax laws?”
Since they got a place at the table. They’ve been as good as writing UK carbon taxes for some time – I once shared a lift with some Greenpeace reps who were bragging about how much they had managed to steer our Department for Energy and Climate Change into their way of thinking. And Marion @ 2:52 pm is dead right about the NGOs influence in the EU too.
The amount of funding that “environmental” NGOs get from Westminster and Brussels is just crazy as well – we taxpayers are forking out to help them to keep racking up the airmiles while they think up new ways for governments to extort money we can’t afford to stave off disasters that aren’t going to happen.
And it’s not just the NGOs – have a look at an outfit called ‘Client Earth’. They get money from the EU to lecture its policymakers on all things “green”, after which (surprise! surprise!) the bureaucrats draft something that suits the NGO lobby and Client Earth gets a new income stream from advising the victims of the policy how to operate within it. Nice work, and they’re not the only ones…
This isn’t a tax, it’s a punitive fine for ‘carbon pollution’.
Taxes are paid to governments for governance services
and are roughly proportional to the cost of said services.
The UN isn’t even a government and does zero services for anybody.
Also, that diagram forgot the FAT money-arrow going to these very clowns.
RE: Consequences of High Cost Bunker Fuel
“Up until now I’ve just talked about the price of fuel, but there will be another price. Not only will it be beyond our grasp to burn fuel when it soon will be $200 a barrel, but we will also be putting a price on the cost of actually burning it. Carbon emissions are right now free, and have been so throughout our industrialization. That is about to change. We are going to put a price on carbon emissions. And just as distance costing money will bring jobs home, putting a price on carbon emissions is also going to bring jobs home. In the past, raising the environmental bar in North America has been all about exporting jobs. It’s been people in the service sector who wanted to make those kinds of choices – people in the manufacturing and resource sector who have paid the cost. That’s about to change. In the world that I see, Archie Bunker is about to get into bed with Al Gore. Because in the world that I see, raising the environmental bar is going to bring jobs home, not send them away.”
Jeff Rubin, former CIBC chief economist, Canada
Speaking at the “The Business of Climate Change Conference,” 2009
His $200-per-barrel oil prediction has yet to come to pass, but he said that was based on an assumed full recovery from the current global recession. This is complicated by his linking of recessions with past high-price oil spikes. I am not sure that the Australians see their carbon-tax as a method of bringing jobs home.
Find an old ‘oiler’/boiler tech from WWII or anyone involved in recent ship operations; THEY have control over the fuel/air mixture alright!
During WWII while on the seas it was paramount to keep those kinds dark emissions to a low level or the captain would be down your neck for NOT watching the flue and becoming ‘visible’ beyond the usual horizon because of dark smoke output!
From: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//archive/index.php/t-145743.html
.
Lucy Skywalker, you might appreciate this:
Blurb about the smoke periscope used aboard a ship to observe the flue gas color and composition resulting from combustion below the boiler …
.
Boiler tech could have been ‘running her rich’ for a photo op too …
.
Here’s the website where the ship photo is posted. Apparently, it was taken in 2007, at “Port S. Louis du Rhone, near Marseille.”
Here, by way of comparison, are a couple of pictures of container ships maneuvering out of their harbors. Note the comparatively huge outpourings of black smoke. /sarc.
This page has another (see below), by double convenience, a Chinese registered container ship recently seen leaving harbor in Durban, SA. More rampant pollution, clearly.
One might guess that Oxfam found a uniquely opportunistic and emotionally evocative picture to transmit the urgency of their “Cause.”
as a boat captain we call going from forward to reverse and getting hard on the throttle…black smokeing-it… big engines smoke when pushed hard, and this boat looks to be docking and backing down hard…thus black smoke…no big deal
I think cargo ships should be nuclear, the amount of weight they (diesels) have to carry in fuel is ridiculous.
The only problem is that enriched uranium in a non military vessel is quite enticing for terrorists.
According to this site, more than a quarter of Oxfam’s funding comes from governments:
http://fakecharities.org/2011/02/charity-202918/
If the other articles on that and similar sites about various charities are true, it would appear that for years the British government has been funding charities that then turn around and lobby it to impose new laws and taxes. Almost as though it wanted those new laws and taxes but didn’t want to impose them itself when it could hide behind a PR blanket by getting a charity to demand them instead.
Personally I stopped giving to non-local charities years ago; I’ll happily donate money to groups run by volunteers who are doing something useful local to me, but not to massive international charities with thousands of paid employees.
polistra says:
Aside from the carbon justification, a shipping tax would actually be good for most countries and bad for China. It would be especially good for America, since it would tilt the playing field against outsourced manufacturing to some extent.
It would advantage the US relative to China, but both would lose.
The effect would be good for US manufacturers initially, but bad for consumers who would have to pay more. That would, eventually, slow the economy down.
Lots of countries have tried to spur their economies by closing their borders, on the basis that it will allow local manufacturers to thrive. It hasn’t worked. so I don’t care how good the theory looks on paper, any effect is short term, and eventually the bad catches up and overtakes the good.
Dave Andrews says:
December 6, 2011 at 2:03 pm
It is pretty ironic that Fentonites/Oxfam/WWF etc now operate in exactly the same way as all those ‘horrible’ global corporations they used to so despise.>>>
Gasp! The green lobby has been infiltrated by capitalist pigs?
Well. that explains everything. 😉
DMarshall says above
“I’m not in favor of backdoor dealings like this but let’s not pretend that the multinationals haven’t been doing exactly this for decades.”
True but the multinationals also generate wealth and jobs, the intent of green activists is to destroy both.
…and one has to get a charge out of the lobbying effort coming from a land locked country.
Next Egypt will propose taxing snow, Canada will propose taxing camels, Russia will propose taxing coconuts, Pepsi will propose taxing Coca Cola and the EU will propose taxing Americans.
Gee whiz, a company that has a revenue stream of $800 million per year wants to get a share of a $10 billion slush fund, how about they open up their books so we can see where the money goes.
RE: Mooloo: (December 6, 2011 at 7:47 pm)
“Lots of countries have tried to spur their economies by closing their borders, on the basis that it will allow local manufacturers to thrive. It hasn’t worked. so I don’t care how good the theory looks on paper, any effect is short term, and eventually the bad catches up and overtakes the good.”
That is true. Of course, if rising carbon-based fuel costs rise with the depletion of carbon resources, we may see a return to low-cost, wind powered shipping. Given the lack of obvious climatic warning signals, I would hope that these environmental taxes would find scant support. If thorium nuclear power proves practical, this may become a nonissue.
@Patrick Guinness Frank (December 6, 2011 at 6:35 pm)
Found the same source. Still can’t make out the name clearly to check where it’s registered and ownership.
@Ben D Hillicoss
Deifinitely the way the older engine types behaved. It’s only for a short time as you note … more modern engine management systems substantially reduce visible smoking as well as substantially improving efficiency (reducing fuel consumption).
The reason for me wanting to check the registration/owner is to see if it’s being operated by those in developing countries; using it to export their products (across the Med. as it appears.), or if it’s just a flag of convenience operated by some money-grubber.
The uncharitable “charities” purport to be trying to help the less-well-off and the environment. Not exhausting their intellect by thinking it through. I doubt if they understand the concept of unintended consequences. Their scheme will penalise the operators with the cleanest ships and reward those operating the dirtiest; while at the same time reducing the spending capacity of the target market for exports from the poor nations.
Seriously. Just look at these two guys, Hill and Gore.
Are they your stereotypical NGO types or what? Perhaps you could even picture them at the drum circle of OWS. I certainly could.
Not only do they look like typical progressives, their actions will produce unintended consequences (higher cost of goods in poor countries) and not do a thing to address the stated mission (lowering greenhouse gases), exactly what happens with all progressive meddling!
in regards to coprophagia.
Good thing we didn’t step in it.
polistra says:
December 6, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Aside from the carbon justification, a shipping tax would actually be good for most countries and bad for China. It would be especially good for America, since it would tilt the playing field against outsourced manufacturing to some extent.
=======================================
I can’t agree … China has already captured a vast proportion of the USA and Euro manufacturing capacity through the stupidity of “Green” economics. The world will pay more, no favourites.
Spector says:
December 6, 2011 at 6:11 pm
RE: Consequences of High Cost Bunker Fuel
… I am not sure that the Australians see their carbon-tax as a method of bringing jobs home.
==========================================================================
It’s just their way of levelling the playing field of all the taxpaying serfs … and enriching the socialist bourgeois.
Looking at the further responses on this subject, a thought struck me about one possible consequence of this proposal. TRADE WAR.
Historically, many people argue that the first and second world wars were fought over trade issues. Even though I tend to dispute that kind of conclusion because I believe that other factors were responsible for the declaration of war, I do tend to think that the actions being proposed could end up causing a world war based on trade.
Here is the reason why I think this is the case: China. I will use the Australian experience rather than another country. During the 1980s Australia moved away from protection to allow free trade. As a direct result of that move, many industries closed down and moved to Asian countries, especially to China. We lost our shoe industry, as well as clothing manufacturing for things such as women’s underwear, sheets, blankes, and other clothing articles. At the same time China was making a variety of other product including computers (also once made in Japan), radios, and other electronic equipment. Even the car industry was affected, especially with the trend towards a world car. The reason for the shift to Asia was due to the lower costs of manufacturing, in particular wages.
If, as stated by some of these people, there was a sudden change in locations, which affects China’s prosperity in the future, then I would see China responding in a warlike fashion.
The whole thing is not very well thought out because this kind of tax with all of its inbuilt inequities could in fact lead to a trade war, and/or another world war.
The NWO mindset luvs the thought of universal taxes, of any description. Setting lovely precedents, doncha know?
Edit note:
“Theses NGO’s” s/b “These NGOs”
Bernd, take a look at the picture, maximum size, here.
One can almost read the name — something like TEWER. The first letter is T; can’t quite make out the second, but it looks to have a horizontal stroke midway down (E?, A?). The third letter looks like “W”, or maybe “UU,” the last two “ER, ” or maybe “EA.”
The NGO “Charities” like WWF & Oxfam are amongst the most dangerous players in the cAGW scam. And there are plenty of precedents for them writing draft legislation.
Exactly what Bryony Worthington of Fiends of the Earth did when she drafted the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 for little Eddie Milipede. Arguably the most expensive (and ridiculous) Bill ever passed into law.
She’s now Baroness Worthington.
Pat and Bernd, the name on the prow is “TELLIER”
In fact, I’m fairly certain that this is the ship in question:
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1347650
A French-flagged LNG tanker built in 1974 and probably headed for the breakers’ yard soon.
Pat Frank says:
December 6, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Bernd, take a look at the picture, maximum size, here.
One can almost read the name — something like TEWER. The first letter is T; can’t quite make out the second, but it looks to have a horizontal stroke midway down (E?, A?). The third letter looks like “W”, or maybe “UU,” the last two “ER, ” or maybe “EA.”
=====================================================
“TELLER” ?
The U.N. is sure to go for this. Look carefully at the “analysis” offered by Oxfam and WWF. $25 billion is collected then $10 billion goes to developing countries and $10 billion for the greenies to waste. That makes it perfect for U.N. accountants because it leaves $5 billion to be siphoned off and put into bureaucrats’ Swiss bank accounts.
Totally predictable: UK Climate Change minister Chris Huhne backs the proposal: http://tgr.ph/tEvEWY
I thought that organisations registered as charities, like WWF and Oxfam, had to stay clear of political campaigning in order not to lose their charitable status. In campaigning for a tax based on the highly politicised subject of CO2 emissions they appear to have crossed that boundary.
If you want to get anywhere with politicians don’t go to them with a problem, go to them with a solution!
That looks like a steam turbine powered tanker ” blowing the tubes” i.e. getting rid of soot from the boiler tubes.
from what i have read before, bunker fuels pretty cruddy stuff fairly heavu and impure and cheaper.
theres a law saying that big ships arent supposed to burn it close to land, or in port due to the emissions. so they use the more expensive cleaner oils while coming into and leaving populated zones.
as to the Tax?
Laughing, most of the shipping is regd to offshore and tax havens now ie Panamanian reg for a Uk ship, no taxes and they can crew from the desperate places.. been some fuss by Aussie unions about crews being treated and paid badly and not much they can do to help them.
Interstellar Bill says:
December 6, 2011 at 5:29 pm
This isn’t a tax, it’s a punitive fine for ‘carbon pollution’.
Taxes are paid to governments for governance services
and are roughly proportional to the cost of said services.
The UN isn’t even a government and does zero services for anybody.
Also, that diagram forgot the FAT money-arrow going to these very clowns.
__________________________________________
I am afraid it is a tax. That has been the whole point of the exercise from day one. To con the public into Making the United Nations a GOVERNMENT. To be a government the United Nations needs certain powers and the ability to tax the people of the world without going through national governments is one of those powers.
This was written in Sep 9, 2000 it sounds like tin foil hat type junk but unfortunately is spot on may the deity help us all:
NOTE: Carroll Quigley was Bill Clinton’s mentor and Historian “for the “puppet masters” behind all of this. The article provides the history of all the crap that is just now surfacing
From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit: http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates14.html
For those who think this is bunk:
Yale Law School January 1, 2006
Good Governance at the Supranational Scale: Globalizing Administrative Law
“…While acknowledging the inevitable lack of democratic underpinnings for supranational governance, this Article highlights a series of other bases for legitamacy: expertise and the ability to promote social welfare; the order and stability provided by the rule of law; checks and balances; structured deliberation; and most notabably the institutional design of policymaking process as structured by principles and practices of administrative law…”
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: is the body of law governing administrative agencies… Administrative agencies [bureaucrats] administer law through the creation and enforcement of regulations…. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a226.htm
“The New World Order” is now known as “Global Governance”
See World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy’s writings on “Global Governance”
Need Truly Global Monetary System http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/256/
Of What Use is Global Governance? http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
New Boundaries for Global Trade http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/401/
World Facing New Leadership Patterns http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/284/
The National Intelligence Council is pleased to release Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_home.html
CIA FOIA release: http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf
I am going to go make my tinfoil hat now, but the United States has neither mined tin since 1993 nor smelted tin since 1989 so I guess I will have to pay the UN tax …..
As mentioned by previous posters, that ship photo looks like its been photoshopped – can Anthony or anyone with access get hold of the original from Getty Images..?
I’ve NEVER seen a diesel-powered ship emit that much smoke…
If it HAS been photoshopped, then Dellers or Chris Booker should let the whole world know about it…
Are sailing vessels excluded from this proposed shakedown?
Edward Bancroft says:
December 7, 2011 at 2:42 am
“I thought that organisations registered as charities, like WWF and Oxfam, had to stay clear of political campaigning in order not to lose their charitable status.”
It would appear not as Chris Huhne seems to be getting his orders direct from WWF/Oxfam
as highlighted by yet another cut/paste from Louise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8939793/Chris-Huhne-tax-on-shipping-to-help-poor-countries-fight-climate-change.html
Activists and NGOs
Several years ago I looked into NGOs because of the WTO/Food/Animal ID issue. Here is some relevant stuff from my notes. (The links may no longer work)
BACKGROUND:
From a history blog:
Remember the Students for a Democratic Society on campus when you were in college?
THE ORIGINS OF NGOs
Remember Maurice Strong, Chair of the First Earth Summit in 1972 that started CAGW? The guy who said “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns….” in his opening remarks at Earth Summit II in 1992.
In brief Maurice Strong worked in Saudi Arabia for a Rockefeller company, Caltex, in 1953. He left Caltex in 1954 to worked at high levels in banking and oil. By 1971, he served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 1972 was Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. He was Co-founder of the WWF and Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the UN.
Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
NGOs REPLACE VOTERS in USA
By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but the implementation of the “regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” [ http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm ] These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.
THE BEHIND THE SCENES PLAYERS
Alternate links: http://www.livescience.com/9704-world-stocks-controlled-select.html
http://wprorev.com/2009/08/scientific-study-find-just-few-funds.htm
The whole Rockefeller/Strong/Saudi/Khashoggi/CIA/Bush/oil/banking interconnections are worth pursuing considering the 1973 Oil Crisis bankrupted third World Countries so they had to get World bank/IMF loans with SAPs strings controlling their governments. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance, (Maurice Strong of course was a member) was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International.
Kissinger/rockefeller/Saudi Royal Family connection: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch27.html
Strong’s web site: http://www.mauricestrong.net/ in google states: Maurice Strong globalized the environmental movement.
Useful, well referenced post, thanks Gail
Simeon Higgs says:
December 6, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I think cargo ships should be nuclear, the amount of weight they (diesels) have to carry in fuel is ridiculous.
The only problem is that enriched uranium in a non military vessel is quite enticing for terrorists.
______________________
“…A 2009 assessment by the IAEA under its Innovative Nuclear Power Reactors & Fuel Cycle (INPRO) program concluded that there could be 96 small modular reactors (SMRs) in operation around the world by 2030 in its ‘high’ case, and 43 units in the ‘low’ case, none of them in the USA….. Development of Small Nuclear Power Reactors (suitable for ships) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
Given the NIMBYs in the USA and the EU, China is going to leave us in the dust as far as nuclear powered shipping. This means the “Affluent Middle Class westerners” will get to foot the bill for a socialist world government while China leaps ahead thanks to “Technology sharing” that has also been mandated.
Dave Andrews says:
December 6, 2011 at 2:03 pm
It is pretty ironic that Fentonites/Oxfam/WWF etc now operate in exactly the same way as all those ‘horrible’ global corporations they used to so despise.>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
davidmhoffer says:
December 6, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Gasp! The green lobby has been infiltrated by capitalist pigs?
Well. that explains everything. 😉
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Green Lobby was STARTED by the capitalist pigs. Now if we could only get the brainwashed activists to see that.
(Love your humor BTW)
Edward Bancroft says:
December 7, 2011 at 2:42 am
I thought that organisations registered as charities, like WWF and Oxfam, had to stay clear of political campaigning in order not to lose their charitable status. In campaigning for a tax based on the highly politicised subject of CO2 emissions they appear to have crossed that boundary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is the 501c3 of the income tax code (1954) thanks to Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson. It sole goal was to muzzle local churches.
It does not effect NGO or large foundations at all.
The loop hole is WWF or Greenpeace or the Rockefeller foundation funds a small policy making arm that is a different “Corporation” and therefore the bulk of the money is not taxed.
http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm
“The image is probably when the ship fired up its boilers for the first time after being idle while unloading.”
Anthony = that ship is down to it’s marks- i.e. fully loaded. It looks like it is going to a discharge berth and blowing it’s tubes. That would no be allowed whilst alongside.
“…since when do NGO’s get to write tax laws?”
Ever since the Parasitic Commies started trying to “save the world” by making the rest of us “equal” slaves…again. “Si se pueda!”
As some have pointed out above, some governments (the UK is mentioned, and other European governments—I don’t think the US is quite there yet) are not only listening to, and enacting, proposals from ‘environmental’ NGOs, but the governments are actively funding them with tax dollars.
How do we curtail such nonsense? We have to elect traditionalists who will insist that such organizations raise their own funds, and that tax policy is never influenced by those who benefit by those taxes.
/Mr Lynn
Durbin was picked because it is Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Can’t have people arm-waving about global warming when it’s freezing.
As we can see, the sea level is already rising fast there. Good thing they have life jackets.
Under which stated conditions?
I can tromp on a 5-cylinder Mercedes diesel and get ‘black smoke’ roiling out the tailpipe; beware you don’t go ‘a bridge too far’ in creating linkages and conspiracies that may not exist (not too unlike Combs above is prone).
Note the post by Ben D Hillicoss (on December 6, 2011 at 6:44 pm) above; it is salient:
.
Congress must grapple with conflict of interest.
Congress Hears Testimony On Conflict of Interest Issues Raised In The Inspector General’s Recent Report
Why not the IPCC/UN?
Canada Revenue Agency 1999… Greenpeace…”no public benefit”.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qZZPd-1Ijv4J:www.ipa.org.au/library/review51-4%2520Its%2520Official%2520Greenpeace%2520serves.pdf+canada+revenue+agency+greanpeace+serves+no+public+benefit&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiMn3kIOi3DzDPy7htbUe7SQs4LIbM1HSXBPjbBerkeL8ivIwRiVjDebt0Jl_Ir0G18TfvgybVZDbpRO4FKf267uSQjtxOIx43N6XhqkriiQBKds28Z4ewkt5p7wDmIvRPQEVVG&sig=AHIEtbRS0ufY8HGTBpdNnHbI25hO8SiygQ
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=canada+revenue+agency+greenpeace+serves+no+public+benefit&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipa.org.au%2Flibrary%2Freview51-4%2520Its%2520Official%2520Greenpeace%2520serves.pdf&ei=ivPfTto4iuvSAfKWvbwH&usg=AFQjCNFlcSZuUObgMpOsMcngVbNIcJ6KFQ&sig2=64yA4IoZTwk6-Pi-DQLpvQ&cad=rja
The emissions from international trade are growing less than the growth in world trade. There are three reasons for this. First the average size is increasing of the larger vessels. Second, the most recent large vessels are designed to go at lower speed than those of just five years ago. Third, there have been great strides made in efficiency improvements.
The major incentive has been the hike in the oil price. Compared to that any 10% tax is just showmanship.
When you look at the carbon impact of food, you must look at the total impact per kg of food. In Britain it is popular to shop at Farmer’s markets. Here the biggest carbon impact per kg of food is the shopper doing a 20 to 50 mile round trip to the market, on top of their normal trip to the supermarket. Fresh Welsh lamb might be much more flavorsome than the frozen New Zealand variety, and travel only 100 miles instead of 10,000 +, but the carbon emissions to get it to my house can be much higher if I travel to a farmer’s market to obtain it.
If you want a rough comparison, a small van with one tonne of cargo will use around 250 times per tonne mile of the largest bulk cargo or container ships. This is despite the biggest of the super-efficient engines weighing 2500 tonnes, producing 100,000 bhp and consuming 15000 litres per hour.
For those who want to The largest supplier of the large ship engines is MAN Diesel and Turbo. The second largest is Wärtsilä.
http://mandieselturbo.com/0000857/Products/Marine-Engines-and-Systems/Low-Speed/Marine-Engine-Programme.html
http://www.wartsila.com/en/engines/low-speed-engines
For those wondering about the ship … Details and more details.
It’s “tiny” by today’s standards. Appears to be transporting gas from Algeria to France.
If the WWF want to stop that, then they have to come up with an affordable alternative which doesn’t deprive Algerians of income or the French of useful heat. The trans-Mediterranean pipelines don’t seem to have the necessary capacity/security.
Growing poverty is in their best interest. Stopping exports stopping jobs, raising import prices is good for them. The poor, overbeed, dark skin peasants, not so good. But the sooner these places are depopulated by these means, the sooner the places can become Parks for rich leftist.
Has anyone told Oxfam that Africa is a net food importer?
Have they thought about the implications of that?
“This paper shows that doing so is possible while ensuring developing countries face no net costs.”
Well yet another misrepresentation in a long list of misrepresentations.
Fuel is typically between 60% and 80% of operating costs. 10 years ago or thereabouts it was $120 a ton. Todays price, which includes a 460-$70 per ton low sulphur premium, is between $620 and $712 a ton for heavy fuel oils and for gas oils it is currently $920 to $1040 a ton.
The Greens have persistently categorised ships as “belching toxic fumes” and heavy fuel oil as “the bottom of the barrel”.
The fact is that despite saying that “A single ship can emit more in one year than many small island states.” or that shipping emits as much pollution as the third most polluting country, shipping is in fact one of the most efficient forms of transport. In fact the figures are somewhere in the range of 3-5% of total anthropogenic emissions. Any significant reduction will not significantly affect the overall burden but will be highly damaging.
The Greens have happily promoted a range of mutually exclusive policies, rather like backing multiple horses in a race, and some of their proposals have bordered in the idiotic.
On the one hand they want a tax on shipping or on bunker fuels but such a tax would not be universal and as has been pointed out many times the primary effect would be to divert shipping from treaty ports to non treaty ports. Calls for unilateral legislation by the USA would lead to an increase in pollution simply because ships would choose to bunker in Mexican or Canadian ports and then ship goods internally by road and rail rather than, as at present, using the great river systems.
Equally they have called for an end to using heavy fuel oils.
This would probably double costs because of the increased competition for MDO and MGO and at the same time, because of the refining costs, add between 2% and 11% to CO2 emissions.
And, for example, the claim that regulation will do no more than put 50cents on a pair of jeans is disingenuous.
Friends of the Earth claimed that switching to MGO or MDO (basically diesel, a refined product which HFO is not) would cost no more. But their comparison was with every vessel fitting exhaust gas scrubbing and assumed that all vessels would do one or the other. A false assumption because the choice is still to use HFO and exhaust gas scrubbing, at that time, was only a potentially affordable solution of r vessels conituously operating in an Emissions control area – e.g. ferries – and then only if they could offset some of the costs through emissions trading and other market based mechanisms, none of which has come to pass. Yet.
To say that shipping is unregulated is also wrong.
The IMO has been putting in place legislation for 30-40 years now and some years back MARPOL Annex VI 73/78 was finally ratified. This primarily limits sulphur emissions but also addresses NOX and COX.
In addition, the move to larger and more efficient vessels is making the industry more efficient and less polluting than otherwise together with a number of other initiatives such as the substantial advances in engine technology.
AT the moment, the claim that shipping is growing in leaps and bounds isn’t born out by the facts. At the ,moment there is excess capacity in the industry. but let’s let that one slide.
The claim that $25 a on is a minor added cost is not god enough. This is on top of all the other added costs and it assumes no change in the current fuel usage. Yet in 2012 not only does the North American ECA (Emission Control Area) come into force but they also will make a major reduction in the permitted sulphur content with no provisions as to how the demand will be met. The refiners have no intentions of introducing fuel de-sulphurisation so shipping is stuck with maximising the use of the available low sulphur fuels or switching to MGO and MDO. This switch will both increase CO2 emissions and potentially double the fuel price (at 60-80% of operating costs) for a significant number of vessels.
Fuel sulphur is a major factor with COX and NOX close behind. But fuel sulphur emission reductions benefit only those people who live all their lives in congested ports and who have the longest life expectancy ofn the planet, the best nutrition and best health care and may extend their lives by a couple of weeks. Maybe.
But what do higher fuel prices do?
Well, shipping cost is a key factor in the equation of low labour rates and low shipping costs that ensures third world countries can ship goods to the markets.
Some years back China made a fuel grab which pushed fuel prices up dramatically. Some US car manufacturers switched the supply of car seats from China to Mexico.
This is the effect of increased fuel prices. For some countries the price differential will effectively cut them off from their markets. The countries that will be the most seriously affected will be those where life expectancy is already low, where they have subsistence level living standards and poor health care.
But no one wants to measure and report on the losers. Instead they characterise shipping pollution as causing 60,000 deaths a year which is a canard. It affects life expectancy. Figure for the UK show that most particulates are consistently below the threshold level for harm and mostly only peak at rush hour – the majority of harmful particulates in the atmosphere are effective only when close to the source.
So just as warmists talk about the number of heat deaths hotter summer will cause but fail to account for the much greater number of cold weather deaths averted by warmer winters, so they don;t want to measure just how much damage changing trading patterns will cause to those people least able to withstand the changes.
So even a few dollars a ton extra on fuel prices have a major impact.
Sorrym the irony is that OXFam should be considering the nutrition and health care of the worlds poor yet here they are on the anti-shipping band-wagon sponsoring actions that will cause untold harm to the very people they should be concerned about.