Australia's CSIRO tries to squelch a dissenting view on carbon trading

CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack

csiro-logo

Article from:  The Australian by Nicola Berkovic

THE nation’s peak science agency has tried to gag the publication of a paper by one of its senior environmental economists attacking the Rudd government’s climate change policies.

The paper, by the CSIRO’s Clive Spash, argues the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is an ineffective way to cut emissions, and instead direct legislation or a tax on carbon is needed.

The paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer-reviewed.

But Dr Spash told the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics conference that the CSIRO had since June tried to block its publication.

In the paper, Dr Spash argues the economic theory underpinning emissions trading schemes is “far removed” from the reality of permit markets. “While carbon trading and offset schemes seem set to spread, they so far appear ineffective in terms of actually reducing GHGs (greenhouse gases),” he says. “Despite this apparent failure, ETS remain politically popular amongst the industrialised polluters.

“The public appearance is that action is being undertaken. The reality is that GHGs are increasing and society is avoiding the need for substantive proposals to address the problem of behavioural and structural change.”

Dr Spash said trading schemes did not efficiently allocate emission cuts because their design was manipulated by vested interests. For example, in Australia, large polluters would be compensated with free permits while smaller, more competitive firms would have to buy theirs at auction. The schemes were also flawed because: global warming was caused by gases other than carbon; emissions were difficult to measure; carbon offsets bought from other countries were of dubious value; and the schemes “crowded out” voluntary action by individuals. He concludes that more direct measures, such as a carbon tax, regulations or new infrastructure would be simpler, more effective and less open to manipulation.

Dr Spash could not be contacted by The Australian.

However, his presentation to the ANZSEE conference in Darwin last Wednesday stated: “The CSIRO is currently maintaining they have the right to ban the written version of this paper from publication by myself as a representative of the organisation and by myself as a private citizen.”

Dr Spash said CSIRO managers had written to the journal’s editor demanding the paper not be published.

CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said the publication of Dr Spash’s paper was an internal matter and was being reviewed by the chief executive’s office.

Read the complete article here at the Australian

Roger Pielke Jr. has an interesting discussion of it also, with some conclusions that blow CSIRO’s defense out of the water.

39 thoughts on “Australia's CSIRO tries to squelch a dissenting view on carbon trading

  1. The same old witch-hunt?
    In Japan an academic big figure has recently organized a team of “skeptics busters” consisting of ten or so AGW proponents working in governmental environmental organizations and universities, thogh for the moment their achievements are of quite limited nature,

  2. Are Government officials going bunkers!
    “Are their cases of environmental pollution that are so egregious that the polluters should be punished as murderers?
    Absolutely, says Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Heinzerling. And she is willing to wipe out half of the world’s population to prove her point. Given her way, she would turn into murderers every manufacturer in America who had any inkling of an idea ahead of time that their actions had even the remotest statistical chance of causing a pollution-related death. And she is determined to give her view the force of law”.
    http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1701

  3. My take is he is saying that the measures won’t work and that tougher more effective measures should be taken.
    Don’t know what the CSIRO is so worried about everyone knows that.
    Yes Bulldust the CSIRO has got down in the trough with all the other grant grabbing institutions.Be another 10 years before we get anywhere using hydrogen to power the world

  4. Just got off the phone with a very old friend in Victoria who said something about clearing trees around his property in advance of the fire season. I asked, “Oh, are you allowed to do that?” and for the next three minutes all I got was “Ahhh… I can’t hear you, Robert…”
    Australians are among the finest people on earth. They did not get the government they deserve.

  5. From the original article.
    However, he said that under the agency’s charter scientists were forbidden from commenting on matters of government or opposition policy.
    The CSIRO charter, introduced last year, was trumpeted by Science Minister Kim Carr as a way to guarantee freedom of expression for scientists.

    Orwell politics and the English language used with such aplomb by Minister Kim Carr.

  6. KRudd747, and his *drinks* cabiniet, have no idea. The person who wears the pants in his household is his wife, both serious church people.
    Sadly, most Aussies I know…have lapped this AGW bullcrap up hook, line and sinker.

  7. We’re in line for strong westerly winds, and at about 35c temps too for the 3rd of November in Sydney (West), Australia. I am sure it will be attributed to…”above average” temps = AGW…no mention of the southery flow leading to “below average” temps = weather…never mind…we’ll all find out soon enough.

  8. “Robert E. Phelan (01:21:12) :
    Australians are among the finest people on earth. They did not get the government they deserve.”
    Totally disagree! I was a migrant worker at the time, I saw all this happening. The “second coming” for Australia, KRudd747. I could not vote! Aussies have the Govn’t they voted for, *they* deserve that. This govn’t has squandered the surplus built up over 11 years under Howard. Gone, over Christmas, *LAST* year.
    And now KRudd747 will slay Australia in Copenhagen. Silly, but he has no worries. He has a guilt edge pension, only has to “serve” 3 years to “secure” that/ Nice, if you can get the work.

  9. The Australian Federal Government intends to take money from GHG emitters and place it in a Government pool. From there, it will be doled out to the needy and worthy.
    The first act of the N&W will probably be to use more fossil fuel. It is very hard to imagine ways to spend windfall money without increasing GHG emissions. Also, Australia has a policy of “NO NUCLEAR”.
    I have seen no list of projects giving the destination of these windfall monies. I have seen no economic costing of such destinations and I have seen no GHG accounting balance for before and after.
    Therefore I am forced to conclude that Government has proposed a gigantic money churn, with the Government taking a cut at every pass. There is no indication that Australia’s GHG emissions will be reduced, hence the World’s.
    The main effect is the distribution of wealth from established industries to windfall recipients, on a basis as yet unclear, less transaction costs. The main outcomes will be an increase in the cost of doing legitimate business and a greater possibility for rorts.
    If private enterprise tried a scheme like this, chances are that they would run foul of the law. That’s how low we have sunk. It’s as low as a snake’s belly to muzzle a scientific author, irrespective of his view. That’s another indicator depressing future hope.

  10. An interesting aspect of this censorship is that Prof. Spash does not appear to be an AGW “denier”. He is an academic economist with a huge list of publications, a journal editor and a book editor in his field, which is ecological economics. He appears to accept AGW but places it in the context of other ecological problems such as waste, sustainability, water management (big issue in Oz), limits of consumption and economics of social utility. Writes heavy stuff on economic theory that only economists could read.
    Not really a target for the global warmists, but he has touched a raw nerve at a time when our government is trying to sell the nation a dud carbon trading scheme.

  11. The article states that ““The public appearance is that action is being undertaken,” with the implication being that the government is marching to the tune of the voters. Or by public appearance, does he mean it’s for the benefit of policy maker peers at Copenhagen? In the first case, I’m sure the public don’t give a damn (although I don’t claim to be familiar with climate change opinion down under).
    In the second case, taking a trading mechanism to Copenhagen would be like a con-man trying to play trick at a conference for con-men – where everyone is a master of the same trick.
    What a mad, mad, mad, mad world we live in.

  12. One thing (ok, there are many things) I don’t get about carbon tax policy is why companies are penalised rather than incentivised. If the objective is a migration to a ‘low carbon’ business world, why aren’t there more tax breaks to encourage businesses to convert? It can be a costly process after all, but it’s for the good of mankind and polar bears. And supposedly the cost of not doing it would be higher. But then positive incentives would mean less tax revenue, and less profits for the carbon trading middle-men.

  13. The choice Clive Spash has provided us with is:
    – Emissions Trading (which is ineffective and creates unintended consequences);
    – Direct Legislation (which means hard targets and enforcement by an agency composed of pro-AGW believers who now have legislation to back-up what they want to do);
    – A Carbon Tax (just keep taxing it more-and-more until it goes away – tax electricity usage, automobile usage – cement – manufacturing etc.)
    I will choose none of the above.

  14. CSIRO seem to be somewhere between the rock and the hard place.
    Based on the report you have some ECO person pointing out the falacy of the Carbon Trading concept and proposing that far more draconian regualtions are written into Law.
    CSIRO, no saints in my eyes, as trying to control this employee who seems to be ‘doing a Hansen’. They are undertaking this possibly not for altruistic reasons but perhaps just slightly realistic reasons – though why they should be disagreeing with so many experts around the world, such as ‘Lord’ Stern, polymath Gordon Brown and the luminous Zac Goldsmith along with many many NGOs is unclear.
    Perhaps they feel that to step beyond the concept of Cap and Trade might just open too many doors through which a more likely reality could escape into the wild?

  15. Robert E P,
    I was in Australia in March this year just after the fires struck Victoria. One of the reasons the fires were so bad was attributed to property owners not being allowed to fell trees and backburn before the fire season arrived.
    So when it did arrive…the fires had a ton of additional fuel to consume!
    But this is what you get when green morons run councils.
    Mailman

  16. Met a wonderful man recently who was a world leader in foresting but was fired from the CSIRO for refusing to genetically engineer native trees. They ensured he didn’t work elsewhere.
    Another friend investigated the CSIRO for its ties to Monsanto
    http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=458
    CSIRO and IPCC
    http://www.ipcc-data.org/is92/csiromk2_info.html
    And we shouldn’t forget the CSIRO disclaimers
    http://landshape.org/enm/csiro-progress-in-science-law/

  17. “Another friend investigated the CSIRO for its ties to Monsanto” twawki
    Just for you information: 85% of Monsanto is held by mutual funds and Institutional (financial) Holders. This has confused people into thinking no one person actually controls Monsanto. This is not true. The fund managers vote the shares. The largest holder of Monsanto stock are divisions of Fidelity. The founding Johnson family controls most of Fidelity. Edward C Johnson 3rd is chairman of the group.
    It is not surprising to find the “banksters” behind this very evil corporation.
    Monsanto the US government connection and the World Trade Organization
    Ann Veneman joined the United States Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service in 1986, serving as Associate Administrator until 1989. During this time she worked on the Uruguay Round talks for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). later it became the World Trade Organization.
    She “played a key role in eliminating trade barriers. She has worked closely with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, helping lead to the successful launch of a new round of trade negotiations for the World Trade Organization.
    Ann Veneman served on the board of directors for Calgene Inc. In 1994, Calgene became the first company to bring genetically-engineered food, the Flavr Savr tomato, to supermarket shelves. Calgene was bought out by Monsanto, the nation’s leading biotech company, in 1997. She was Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity Programs from 1989 to 1991 and later Sec of Ag.
    “Robert Shapiro was chair of Monsanto while also leading the President’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.
    Mickey Kantor, US trade representative (USTR) for much of the Uruguay Round, subsequently became a Monsanto board member
    Marcia Hale, a former assistant to President Clinton and director for intergovernmental affairs, was director of international government affairs for Monsanto.
    Clayton K. Yeutter, a former secretary of agriculture and US trade representative, who led the US team in negotiating NAFTA and helped launch the GATT Uruguay Round, joined the board of directors at Mycogen Corporation. Mycogen’s majority owner is Dow AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company.
    The web of interconnections between industry and successive US administrations’ trade negotiators ensures that private (often monopoly) interests will trump those of people and the planet.
    It was former Cargill Vice-President, Dan Amstutz was the negotiator appointed to head the delegation, “…who drafted the original text of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Opening Southern markets and converting peasant agriculture to corporate agriculture is the primary aim of Cargill and hence the Agreement on Agriculture.
    But opening markets for Cargill implies closure of livelihoods for farmers. W.T.O. rules are not just about trade. They determine how food is produced and who controls food production. Converting self-sufficient food economies into food dependent economies is the Cargill vision and the W.T.O. strategy.” http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1711
    The central bankers and corporations are intent on grabbing all our wealth no matter what country we live in.
    This site is VERY long and includes several separate articles about international central banking with links. The Australian article is at http://freedomprime.blogspot.com/2008/08/australias-loss-of-sovereignty-to.html. Go to the middle and look at the articles on banking. Much of the rest is “conspiracy” type stuff but the banking articles are pretty good. If you want other versions specific to the USA
    Short: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm
    A PRIMER ON MONEY: by US House Committee on Banking and Currency (LONG) http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/patman-primer-on-money.pdf

  18. Bulldust:
    “Thankfully the collapse of modern civilisation has been pushed back to the middle of the 21st century… hopefully I will be dead or assimmilated into the singularity* by then.”
    I have great hopes for the singularity.
    The missing perspective in all of this is the impact that emerging technologies will have on all of this. I don’t personally believe that whatever insignificant effect GHG have on our environment is worth doing anything about, but the biggest fallacy is that we will continue to live as we do in 100 years!!!!
    Think about it. Solar technologies are silicon based and should follow Moore’s law until the point where a much higher percentage of the solar energy is converted to electricity. This will occur in the next 10 years or so. Don’t force it. The market will determine when the cost is competitive with fossil fuels. Despite the fact that we keep finding more, fossil fuel costs will eventually rise causing newer technologies to become relatively cheaper. The free market and economic principles will eventually make all this nonsense moot.
    This same logic (maybe not Moore’s law, but technological advances driven by market opportunities) applies to energy storage technologies (new, high capacity batteries), lighting (LED’s are substantially better than CFL’s and are also a silicon based technology), displays (OLED is much more efficient than current LED), etc.
    We are 10 – 20 years from a really different technological energy environment. If we force it, we end western civilization as we know it (and probably don’t get to these technologies as soon). If we let the market work, we’ll end up much better off than today and continuing to advance as a society / species.

  19. “We are 10 – 20 years from a really different technological energy environment. If we force it, we end western civilization as we know it (and probably don’t get to these technologies as soon). If we let the market work, we’ll end up much better off than today and continuing to advance as a society / species.” Mike O
    Crippling taxes and crippling red tape (regulations) are the best way to kill emerging technologies. Banks and large multinational corporations are anti-competition, anti-free market and anti-capitalism. They want monopolies they control and they use government taxes and red tape to kill any possible competition. The Cap and Trade bill, World Trade Organization, Food Safety con job bills, EPA…. are all about killing competition and screwing the consumer for every cent they can. So people live in poverty and stave – they do not care.
    Someone at another site stated “….my brother chose not to see the light of day, and it was his very employer who showed him. He worked for the EPA in oil field site inspections. Consistently he was tasked with fining, and shutting down mom, and pop outfits, but consistently was ordered to leave the big boys like Exxon Mobil alone.
    This made a profound impact on the way he looked at the World…. ”
    John Munsell documented the USDA’s favoritism that led to a woman’s death and many illnesses. http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/07/articles/lawyer-oped/one-e-coli-o157h7-outbreak-i-think-i-could-have-prevented/ Munsell explains how the new HACCP regs (1996) remove government oversight of our food production. http://www.agpolicy.org/weekcol/467.html
    This was backed up by the Apr 17, 2008 Testimony of Mr. Stan Painter, Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, at a Congressional investigation of the recall of Hallmark/Westland Meat. Stan Painter receive reports from union member that regulations were not uniformly enforced. Painter wrote to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operation about the enforcement problem. The USDA responsed by placed Painter on disciplinary investigation status and contacted the USDA Office of Inspector General about filing criminal charges.
    “It (the recall of Hallmark/Westland Meat) highlights one of the problems that we have attempted to raise with the agency ever since 1996 when the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection system was put in place. There seems to be too much reliance on an honor system for the industry to police itself. While the USDA investigation is still on going at Hallmark/Westland, a couple of facts have emerged that point to a system that can be gamed by those who want to break the law. It (HACCP) shifted the responsibility for food safety over to the companies.” Stan Painter http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/documents/20080418113258.pdf
    December 2004 Freedom of Information Act requests
    August 2005 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds — were turned over
    Note they were no criminal charges or removals of management in the USDA and Painter’s testimony was sidelined by the USDA. The food recalls made big headlines that are now being used as an excuse to force pharmacutical manufacturing type red tape on farmers and even home gardeners.
    The clause to look for in any bill is this.
    HR 875 also includes this.
    “in any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST.”
    The Commerce Clause:
    “Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government’s objective.
    The Court’s opinion must be quoted to be believed:
    [The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.
    As Epstein commented, “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is ‘commerce among the several states?'” For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr. Filburn’s freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected:
    It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others.
    After Wickard , everything is mere detail…. The Court has held that if Congress sees a connection to interstate commerce, it is not its role to second guess.” http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp
    Welcome to 1984. Thanks to the Commerce Clause the government can inspect your frig and bathroom without a warrant if you raise any food – no kidding it happened to a friend of mine.
    I expect we will see similar stuff where the EPA comes in and inspects your home under the Cap and Trade bill if they manage to insert into the bill:
    “in any action to enforce the requirements of the Cap and Trade law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST.”

  20. Just for you information: 85% of Monsanto is held by mutual funds and Institutional (financial) Holders. This has confused people into thinking no one person actually controls Monsanto.
    No it’s confused you. Most large corporations main share holders are Institutional of some kind.
    The fund managers vote the shares.
    Yes, that is what they are payed for.
    The largest holder of Monsanto stock are divisions of Fidelity.
    Who cares? They can only have 15% voting rights according to you.
    It is not surprising to find the “banksters” behind this very evil corporation.
    It would not be suprising to find out you are another one of those tiresome Marxists who hate businesses.
    The central bankers and corporations are intent on grabbing all our wealth no matter what country we live in.
    I doubt you have ever produced anything of any worth in your entire life. You should be safe.

  21. “It would not be surprising to find out you are another one of those tiresome Marxists who hate businesses.
    The central bankers and corporations are intent on grabbing all our wealth no matter what country we live in.
    I doubt you have ever produced anything of any worth in your entire life. You should be safe.” MartinGAtkins
    First I am a Capitalist not a Marxist, it is Corporatism I hate. http://ilovetheconstitution.blogspot.com/2007/07/capitalism-vs-corporatism.html
    The author of the Federal Reserve Act was a German banker, Paul Warburg. His brother, Max Warburg, funded the Bolshevik Revolution. You make the mistake most people make in thinking banks and corporations are pro-capitalism, they are not. They want Corporatism and formed the Committee for Economic Development in 1942 to influenced US domestic policies. The CED is composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve, the banking industry, private equity firms, insurance companies, railroads, information technology firms, publishing companies, pharmaceutical companies, the oil and automotive industries,… http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
    The bankers are/were intent on killing capitalism because the last thing they wanted was competition!
    “Competition is a sin said John D. Rockefeller I and that includes competition from these upstart banks…
    One of the purposes of the Federal Reserve System was to keep the lid on those new competitive banks so they could never grow and become large like the ones on Wall Street. The small banks have always been the target in this system and needed to be kept in line, to be regulated out of existence, a process which you’ve noticed has been going on for many, many years. There is objective number one..
    Objective number two was to reverse the trend of what is called private capital formation. That’s banker language for a process in which an individual or a corporation uses their own savings to pay for something instead of going to the bank and borrowing it, if you can imagine that happening. It was happening at the turn of the century. The trend was that businesses in particular were withholding some of their dividends each quarter and putting that money into a sinking fund and then as the money accumulated or as the capital formed, then they finally had enough that they could use their own money to build that new factory or to launch a research & development project or whatever instead of going to the banks and borrowing for it. The banks were very concerned over this trend because this is their life-blood.” http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm
    Compare what happen In the 1920’s to today.
    “During this depression, the trust operators achieved further control by their backing of three international swindlers, The Van Sweringen brothers, Samuel Insull, and Ivar Kreuger. These men pyramided billions of dollars worth of securities to fantastic heights. The bankers who promoted them and floated their stock issue could have stopped them at any time, by calling loans of less than a million dollars, but they let these men go on until they had incorporated many industrial and financial properties into holding companies, which the banks then took over for nothing….
    The revelation of the Federal Reserve Board’s final decision to trigger the Crash of 1929 appears, amazingly enough, in The New York Times. On April 20, 1929… The Federal Reserve Board had already warned the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks to get out of the Market, on February 6, 1929, but it had not bothered to say anything to the rest of the people. Nobody knew what was going on except the Wall Street bankers who were running the show…. Both J.P. Morgan and Kuhn, Loeb Co. had “preferred lists” of men… The men on these lists were notified of the coming crash, and sold all but so-called gilt-edged stocks..
    Predictably enough, all of the big bankers rode through the depression “with flying colors.” The people who suffered were the workers and farmers who had invested their money
    The Crash of 1929 also saw the formation of giant holding companies which picked up these cheap bonds and securities,. In 1929 J.P. Morgan Company organized the giant food trust, Standard Brands. There was an unequaled opportunity for trust operators to enlarge and consolidate their holdings
    Now look at what happened in the 1980’s
    “Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration’s relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers….
    LBOs and other leveraged recapitalizations force managements to sell unprofitable divisions, avoid low pay-off investments, eliminate wasteful corporate expenses and diversifying acquisitions, and boost operating efficiency in order to meet the interest charges on the high level of debt. These forced efficiencies eliminate the value gap and create net economic gains for shareholders. Although this is a severe solution that exposes the firm to financial distress in the few years after the LBO, the evidence is that the LBOs and leveraged restructurings of the eighties created large net gains for shareholders.” http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/TakeoversandLeveragedBuyouts.html
    The leveraged buyouts took well managed well funded companies like Gillette, which had no outstanding debt and destroyed them that is why the USA has LESS productive employees in 2009 than they did in 1970. I know a guy whose company packed up and shipped manufacturing plants overseas.
    “I doubt you have ever produced anything of any worth in your entire life.”
    Actually I have worked in production factories making textiles, personnel care products, drugs, plastics and ceramics for 25 years and now I farm, producing meat and wool.
    What I want to see is the red tape and regulations strangling true capitalism removed. I want the usury where interest on any loan of fiat money (meaning money made out of nothing) is illegal. When a US bank loans out $100,000 they have a MAX of $3,000 dollars in cash reserve the rest is fairy dust that does not exist except as a new entry in a computer.
    “Thomas Edison said, “People who will not turn a shovel-full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of materials will collect more money than will the people who will supply all the materials and do all the work.” I wondered when I read that if Tom was exaggerating so I got my calculator out. I assumed that there was going to be a $100,000 house built. I assumed that $30,000 would have to go for land, architect’s fees and permits and that kind of thing. $70,000 would go for the actual construction of the house, building materials and labor. I assumed that the buyer would go to the bank and put 20% down and then borrow the balance at 10% over 30 years. I punched in the numbers and discovered that the borrower will pay to the bank in interest $172,741 compared to $70,000 paid for the construction of the house. In other words, about 2 1/2 times as much money will be paid to the bank in interest than will be paid to those who provide all the labor and all the materials. And you may say to yourself, yes but that’s fair, after all a 30 year loan is a long loan and people work for their money and sacrifice its use and loan it and so forth and deserve to be compensated. No. Not this money. Nobody worked for this money, nobody saved this money. There was no sacrifice of any kind for this money. This money was created out of nothing and I suggest that $172,741 interest on nothing is excessive!” http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

  22. “What I want to see is the red tape and regulations strangling true capitalism removed.” Gail Combs
    You and me both!
    The bloody, bloody bankers,
    that most “respected” lot.
    How many millions have they starved?
    How many have they shot?
    The bloody, bloody bankers
    since 1694.
    Booms, busts, depressions
    and never ending war.

  23. I used to work for CSIRO indirectly, and trust me, their “cutting edge” research into mining technology is by no means the leading authority, when compared to private industry and industry-sponsored researchers.
    CSIRO is motivated now, more so than ever, by the hand that feeds them, and are compelled to keep the government happy.

  24. “Mailman (06:10:09) :
    Robert E P,
    I was in Australia in March this year just after the fires struck Victoria. One of the reasons the fires were so bad was attributed to property owners not being allowed to fell trees and backburn before the fire season arrived.
    So when it did arrive…the fires had a ton of additional fuel to consume!
    But this is what you get when green morons run councils.
    Mailman”
    And guess what is happening in Victoria and New South Wales this year? Clearing fire risks and back-burning etc etc…

  25. Peter Spear (21:39:10) :
    Brilliant – never seen it. I was expecting it to be to the YMCA tune from the Village People but this was just as good.

  26. Gail Combs (12:44:29) :
    First I am a Capitalist not a Marxist, it is Corporatism I hate.
    I’m a vegetarian it’s just I like eating meat. Corporatism is capitalism. Cooperative pooling of spare capital is the essence of capitalism. You may not be a Marxist and in this I grant I may have been rash in my assesment but you are a very confused person.
    You make the mistake most people make in thinking banks and corporations are pro-capitalism, they are not.
    You do not know what capitalism is and this is why you make these ridicules disjointed statements.
    From your link:-

    On the contrary, these measures will permit large processors to become an essentially unregulated segment of the industry by privatizing the inspection process, and — at the same time — the new regulations will constitute a cost-prohibitive barrier for small players to remain in business, making them easy targets for indiscriminant enforcement and greater market consolidation.

    This is a truly warped assessment. The aim of most legislation in this regard is to acknowledge that the government does not have the resources to oversee the safety aspects of all goods produced for public consumption. As such it is for producers to formulate a best practice frame work for each industry and present their findings to the regulatory authorities so that they can then ensure that all players abide by the guidelines.
    It does not “constitute a cost-prohibitive barrier for small players to remain in business” unless you want you baker to mix his dough in a washed out cement mixer.
    The rest of your post is just a confused mass of diatribe and has nothing to do with science. You have a scatter gun approach to the various complexities of society and you will achieve nothing with long lists of things you think are unjust but have no understanding of the intricate nature of life much less any formative remedies.

  27. Believe me I have intimate knowledge of the impact of regulations on business. I have written entire manuals for the drug industry, I have seen the effects of regulations first hand when they increased the cost of doing business and put the plant I worked for in financial straits. I have seen regulations drive a number of my friends who operated small businesses bankrupt. Regulations are a weapon used by multinational cartels to create a no competition monopoly.
    This is what the UN (FAO) had to say about HACCP driving small businesses into bankruptcy:
    “HACCP rules mandated across an industry will have different impacts on the industry, depending on the market structure of the industry. In general, HACCP rules will likely impose higher costs on small firms than on large firms. An example of this is provided by estimates of market structure change on the United States meat and poultry slaughter and processing industry predicted to result from HACCP. Industry leaders predict that the regulation will drive small producers out of business. The actual effects on small producers will depend on the cost disadvantage faced by small firms, and the degree to which small plants can raise prices in the event they face a cost disadvantage. It will also depend on the ability of small plants to occupy small market niches that allow them to pass along higher product costs. For the United States meat and poultry industry, economists predict that if small producers do exit the industry, the pattern will be an increase in the rate of exits and decrease in the rate of entries” http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X0465E/X0465E08.htm
    This is what the European Union Committee has planned for Poland:
    “Farmers stand in the way of land acquisitions; so they are best removed. Corporations thus join with the EU in seeing through their common goals and set about intensively lobbying national government to get the right regulatory conditions to make their kill…
    “After clearing her throat and leaning slowly forward, the chair-lady said: “I don’t think you understand what EU policy is…To do this it will be necessary to shift around one million farmers off the land and encourage them to take city and service industry jobs…
    There in a nutshell you have the whole tragic story of the clinically instigated demise of European farming over the past three decades. We protested that with unemployment running at 20 percent how would one provide jobs for another million farmers dumped on the streets of Warsaw? This was greeted with a stony silence, eventually broken by a lady from Portugal, who rather quietly remarked that since Portugal joined the European Union, 60 percent of small farmers had already left the land. “The European Union is simply not interested in small farms,” she said.
    …That ’game’ was all too familiar to me. Spend hours out of your working day filling in endless forms, filing maps and measuring every last inch of your fields, tracks and farmsteads; applying for ‘passports’ for your cattle and ear tags for your sheep and pigs; re-siting the slurry pit and putting stainless steel and washable tiles on the dairy walls; becoming versed in HASAP hygiene and sanitary rules and applying them where any food processing was to take place; and living under the threat of convictions and fines should one put a finger out of place or be late in supplying some official details” http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/clearance-of-polish-peasant-farmers-makes-way-for-the-smithfields-of-this-world-will-these-e-u-methods-be-coming-soon-to-a-country-near-you/
    …The sheer amount of paperwork and restrictions on what farmers can do is a problem – it takes up around 60 per cent of Mr Lawton’s time. “It’s difficult particularly for us family farms who don’t have a huge staff for administration,” he said
    .http://www.thisisswindon.co.uk/display.var.2166378.0.tough_times_for_the_farmers.php
    “This is a truly warped assessment. The aim of most legislation in this regard is to acknowledge that the government does not have the resources to oversee the safety aspects of all goods produced for public consumption.” MartinGAtkins
    No that is a real assessment based on 25 years of experience of uncovering liars and cheats in industry. I can compare quality before and after the implementation of ISO. I have been FIRED four times for exposing industry malpractice. The last was connected to three airline crashes due to the cheating going on in the plant I worked for who made aircraft engine parts. The time before was connected to gross negligence resulting in an explosion and fire. I was fired three day before that for going to the president of the company with my evidence and trying to get him to authorize the needed maintainance.
    In 1987 the methods used by Deming and the other leaders were quantified as a set of quality manufacturing standards called ISO 9000. I was one of the first to get training in ISO 9000 here in the USA. I was impressed by the first half of the presentation and during break started discussing what I had learned with my seat-mate. He was not at all impressed. He was originally from Russia, and he told me that the Soviet Union had used the same kind of system for years, and that it generated paperwork, not quality. Twenty years later I, along with other quality professionals, agree with him. That assessment is based on years of real life experience on the plant floor.
    …”I’m wondering if there might be a silent majority of Quality [magazine] readers out there on the topic of ISO 9000. The response to my July editorial, “Eliminate ISO 9000?,” was the heaviest that we have received in some time…What surprised me is that the July editorial elicited no ardent rebuttals in defense of ISO 9000…” http://www.qualitymag.com/Articles/Letters_From_the_Editor/65730ee7f4c38010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0
    Bean counters, looking only for immediate additional profit, found some of the concepts of ISO 9000 very attractive:
    1.Do not duplicate effort by repeating testing that’s already been done. This means that incoming inspection can be eliminated, saving some labor.
    2.Develop a relationship with a single source instead of wasting resources on qualifying several sources
    3.Use “Just In Time” Since the source is pre-qualified, the raw materials can arrive on the same day as needed, eliminating warehouses and jobs.
    The third item is particularly is interesting. If the method fails, that is, if the supposedly pre-qualified material is no good, there might be no choice but to use it anyway! The result can be anywhere from a minor inconvenience to a total disaster, I have seen both.
    So what does this have to do with the HACCP? First, because of the “Quality Revolution” a version of ISO was developed for the food industry. It was called HACCP and was published as an international standard in 1993 by Codex Alimentarius. In 1995 Mil Std 105E was declared obsolete and in 1996 HACCP was adopted by the USDA and FDA.
    Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems rule was implemented on July 25, 1996: Under the HACCP rule, industry is responsible for assessing potential food safety hazards and systematically preventing and controlling those hazards. FSIS [Food Safety Inspection Service] is responsible for verifying that establishments’ HACCP systems are working ..www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Evolution_of_RBI_022007.pdf
    Notice how this ruling has shifted the focus of audits, both government and private, from testing for contamination to checking the paperwork documenting the “Quality Management System”. Secondly, rigorous incoming inspection has been drastically cut‒if not eliminated‒by the companies that receive raw materials. For example in buying peanuts from the vendor, Peanut Corps of America, Kellog relied only on a third-party auditor who reported on the integrity of the suppler. Twenty or thirty years earlier Kellog would have sent their own quality professional to work at the vendor’s facility to assure the product quality. Gillette did this all the time with outside contract vendors.
    The change in mind set from test to trust the paperwork is why food safety auditors could give a “superior” rating to Peanut Corps of America’s Blakely, Georgia plant that a few months later would poison hundreds. The outrage would then be used to push more regulations to put independent American farmers out of business.
    Even the New York Times is finally getting the picture.
    “While the USDA fiddles, spending countless millions of taxpayer dollars forcing their NAIS “Mark of the Beast” agenda onto traditional farmers and their livestock, Industrial Ag is busy torching Rome (Washington politicians and bureaucrats) with the product of their unfettered greed: dirty campaign contributions, payoffs, lobbyists, etc. To the point that Walmart, now the largest retailer in the US, can buy so-called burger from Cargill, now the largest privately held company in the US, and label this swill as American Chef’s Angus Beef Patties allegedly containing only one ingredient, beef; when in point of fact it’s a deadly international blend of slaughterhouse floor sweepings, cereal and spices laced with E. Coli bacterium.
    E.Coli from feedlot cattle around the world, living(?) up to their bellies in feces; H1N1 Swine flu from confinement hog operations in Mexico; Salmonella from fresh spinach grown downstream of acres of manure pools at confinement dairies in California; MSRA in pigs and people at CAFOs in the Midwest. What is it we don’t get about the obvious source of our poisoned food?…”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
    alternate for nonmembers http://nonais.org/2009/10/01/bulletin-board-200910/
    Bio-fuel laws in the USA resulted in corn being diverted to fuel, food riots in third world countries and record profits for Cargill and Monsanto in 2008. It did not hurt that Dan Amstutz (VP of Cargill) in 1996 rewrote the USDA policies on food stockpiling so by 2008 the “cupboard was bare”
    As far as “Capitalism” is concerned I do not consider the Corporate/Government collusion seen to day through out the world as “Capitalism” As Ayn Rand stated ” Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off. ”
    One definition of “Capitalism is a social system based on the rejection of the initiation of force or violence against others.” http://laissez-fairecapitalism.com/
    If capitalism is defined as private ownership of property and wealth, as opposed to state control, then there is truly a problem on our hands if a leading intellectual believes capitalism accurately describes our economy….
    The existence of a central bank which adjusts the money supply, such as the Federal Reserve, cannot serve as a back-bone for liberal capitalism. Only a currency system in which the private banks individually control interest rates can serve as a back-bone for a capitalist economy. Otherwise, the state has control and can manipulate the markets, and the market is doomed to instability…
    Countries that have flourished have done so only by exploiting the laws of economics by adhering to liberal capitalism. Countries that trend toward planned economies have not flourished.” http://mises.org/story/3658
    I realize this site is more about “global warming” and the regulations poised to be put in place, however the multinational corporate shenanigans with worldwide food regulations shows how multinational corporations collude with politicians in first manipulating a well publized “Crisis” and then use that crisis as an excuse for regulations designed to crush competition and fleece the consumer. Any and all increase in “cost” to the major corporations will be passed on to the consumer but the new regulations put smaller and new companies at a financial disadvantage especially when the regulatory agencies target the small companies for elimination.

  28. “Regulations are a weapon used by multinational cartels to create a no competition monopoly.” Gail
    Gail,
    You blow me away. I am very glad and proud to be on the same side as you. We “get” it. The other side doesn’t.
    Keep at it though I doubt anyone could stop you!

  29. “Any and all increase in “cost” to the major corporations will be passed on to the consumer but the new regulations put smaller and new companies at a financial disadvantage especially when the regulatory agencies target the small companies for elimination.” Gail
    Bingo! When will folks learn that if we won’t play fair we will just loot each other to death.
    Hey, you so-called winners, there is Judge after this life. Will even your children prosper considering that children are a gift from Him!
    Oh, Gail. You and Lucy have reset my standards in women to “Impossible!”

  30. “You do not know what capitalism is and this is why you make these ridicules disjointed statements. “ MartinGAtkins
    I suspect you do not know the difference between “money” and “capital.” If you understood fractional reserve banking in a government enforced monopoly money you would realize that banks and borrowers LOOT capital via money creation.

  31. Gail,
    I agree with most of what you say. I believe that in government there is a presumption towards large employers – corporations – and against small businesses. One of the main reasons why, is to get as many people as possible on the PAYE ticket – that is, their tax is deducted at source by the employer and there is nothing the employee can do about it. Compare that with all the little dodges the self employed and small business people can come up with, with the aid of a good accountant.
    Governments may mouth words of praise for small business, but it is a janus faced lie.

  32. suspect you do not know the difference between “money” and “capital.” If you understood fractional reserve banking in a government enforced monopoly money you would realize that banks and borrowers LOOT capital via money creation.
    I’m not going to get involved in an economic debate in a science blog. I know the difference between money and capital. It’s not the banks and borrowers who loot your capital via money creation. It’s your government.

  33. As far as “Capitalism” is concerned I do not consider the Corporate/Government collusion seen to day through out the world as “Capitalism”
    You’re right but Corporatization is not the problem. The problems arise when goverments try to use Corporations to impliment national policy through kickbacks and subsidies. At best this is blatant corruption at worst it is Nationalist Socialism.
    What you see in Europe is not corporate control of government but government control of corporations.
    Europe is embracing a specific form of socialism. By regulating and dictating what products can be produced and who produces them they aim to control all commerce. This is not capitalism it’s National Socialism.

  34. “Europe is embracing a specific form of socialism. By regulating and dictating what products can be produced and who produces them they aim to control all commerce. This is not capitalism it’s National Socialism.”
    In that we are agreed. In the USA the large corporations buy the politicians. A check of the USDA and the FDA shows a revolving door between Cargill, Monsanto and the rest.
    For Example Mike Taylor was counsel to FDA, then worked for King & Spalding (representing Monsanto) and that is where we got the ruling that GMO is the same as regular crops and needs no testing.
    History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job http://farmwars.info/?p=1565 traces the influence of the Council on Foreign Relations influence of farm legislation since 1942. The Council on Foreign Relations is “Composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve, the banking industry, private equity firms, insurance companies, railroads, information technology firms, publishing companies, pharmaceutical companies, the oil and automotive industries, meat packing companies, retailers and assisted by university economists…” and was formed to influence domestic US policies.
    That and the Federal Reserve is what I mean by corporate/bank/government collusion.
    A PRIMER ON MONEY: by the Congressional COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY
    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/patman-primer-on-money.pdf
    is where I got much of my information on the federal reserve and the bankers influence on government.
    In 1933, Congressman McFadden introduced House Resolution No. 158, Articles of Impeachment for the Secretary of the Treasury, two assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and the officers and directors of its twelve regional banks. Subsequently he was shot at twice, poisoned and had his stomach pumped, and poison a second time so he reportedly “died of the stomach flue” on Oct. 3, 1936.
    Here is part of McFadden’s speech http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy29.htm
    “Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has repudiated its debts to its own citizens. Its chief foreign creditor is Great Britain, and a British bailiff has been at the White House and the British Agents are in the United States Treasurymaking inventory arranging terms of liquidations!…”Mr. Chairman, the Fed has offered to collect the British claims in full from the American public by trickery and corruption, if Great Britain will help to conceal its crimes. The British are shielding their agents, the Fed,…
    It is amazing how many presidents and other political leaders end up dead, killed by “a lone gunman” after defying the banking powers, Ain’t those numbered swiss bank accounts handy? Nine American Presidents have been the targets of assassination http://theruthlesstruth.com/wordpress/?p=742 The latest was Ron Paul, just a few short weeks after he had assure his supporters he was in the Presidential race to the end, he abruptly quit a couple of days after the Bildeburgers met he in the USA.
    Money buys votes and politicians whether it is Global Warming, Food Safety or bank bailouts. If you follow the thread you keep coming back to the same people.

  35. “It’s not the banks and borrowers who loot your capital via money creation. It’s your government.” MartinGAtkins
    Well, I’ll give you partial credit, the government shares in the loot too.
    But when a fractional reserve loan is extended, new money (credit) is created by your local bank. The purchasing power for that money is stolen from all existing money holders including and especially the poor.

  36. Re what Gail said:
    I am surprised that Ron Paul would be put off by a mere assassination attempt.
    Maybe he is like me, I can be broken but I won’t stay broken.

Comments are closed.