Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum sends word of this new revelation. North and Christopher Booker were the first to point out the money trail with Pachauri. Now the have followed the money on IPCC’s “Amazongate” all the way to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Here’s an excerpt from both.
Appearing in the Booker column is an account of how the “conservation” group WWF hopes to turn Amazonian trees into billions of dollars, all in the name of saving the planet. The background briefing on which Booker relied is posted below, detailing how the rainforests are to become a monstrous cash-making machine.
The Amazon – a “green gold-rush”
The WWF and other green campaign groups talking up the destruction of the Amazon rainforests are among those who stand to make billions of dollars from the scare. This “green gold-rush” involves taking control of huge tracts of rainforest supposedly to stop them being chopped down, and selling carbon credits gained from carbon dioxide emissions they claim will be “saved”.
Backed by a $30 million grant from the World Bank, the WWF has already partnered in a pilot scheme to manage 20 million acres in Brazil. If their plans get the go-ahead in Mexico at the end of the year, the forests will be worth over $60 billion in “carbon credits”, paid for by consumers in “rich” countries through their electricity bills and in increased prices for goods and services.
The prospect of a billion-dollar windfall explains the sharp reaction to the “Amazongate” scandal, in which the IPCC falsely claimed that up to 40 percent of the rainforest could be at risk from even a slight drop in rainfall.
Here, the IPCC was caught out again making unsubstantiated claims based on a WWF report. But unlike the “Glaciergate” affair where its claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was conceded to be an “error”, the IPCC stood firm on its Amazon claim, stating that the assertion was “correct”. What makes the difference is that there is no serious money locked into melting glaciers. Amazonian trees, however, are potentially worth billions.
In standing its ground, the IPCC was strongly supported by the WWF, and by Daniel Nepstad, a senior scientist from the US Woods Hole Research Centre. Relying on an assiduously fostered reputation as a leading expert on the effects of climate change in the Amazon rainforests, Nepstad – who works closely with the WWF – posted on the Centre’s website a personal statement endorsing “the correctness of the IPCC’s statement”. Bizarrely, his own research failed in any way to substantiate the claim.
==================================
Read the rest of this entry at the EU Referendum here
Also see the Booker column in the Telegraph
So is there a methane credit scheme popping up somewhere? Because here’s the report to justify a tax on beef to fight global warming:
http://fixtheclimate.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/PP_Methane_Johansson_Hedenus_v.2.0.pdf
It looks like one of the founders of the WWF was into eugenics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley
Their first president was a German:
Bernhard Leopold Friedrich Eberhard Julius Kurt Karl Gottfried Peter of Biesterfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_of_Lippe-Biesterfeld
who was also a little bit of a member of a certain party who happened to rule, well, a sizeable chunk of Europe back then. But he was a charming young man! Oh and a member of the SS as well…
I intentionally use wikipedia as the source here because they’re leftist and pro-AGW so we know what bias we’ll find there. And when even them document these facts… welll… this surely gives some backing to the statement that they’re into chasing away poor peasants off their land.
“Brian G Valentine (15:03:48) :
Why does the Government allow some Communist front organization like WWF to operate a Ponzi-like fraud scheme out in the open like that? ”
There’s not much of a difference between communism and fascism, Mussolini started out as a socialist and both communism and fascists are into price fixing, but for precision you should better call the WWF fascist i think….
I don’t see any suggestion in this article or the linked EU referendum article regarding whether this is $60 billion per year, or $60 billion once. I assume the desire would of course be per year.
Given that blue-green algae produces more oxygen than the Amazon rain forest, I wonder what I could get for not scraping the glass on my various salt water tanks?
Also, no mention whatsoever that the Northern forests provide more oxygen than the rainforests, being more vast, even Disney got that right in Planet Earth. Wonder what those will be worth?
What complete nonsense. In the linked EU Referendum article, it’s difficult to overlook the pic of the baby suckling prominently from his tribesman mother, and the pic of the emaciated child clinging to his mother.
But…does that mean not cutting trees half a world away should be worth anything?
Sickening. Eco-policies condemning the under-developed in Africa to a continued culture of subsistence existence is disgusting.
Tying that with trees in South America is intellectually dishonest and also disgusting, and suggesting that this should somehow be tied to my cost of electricity is bizarre.
How much inevitability are we expected to tolerate?
The End is Coming!!!
@ur momisugly thegoodlocust (15:42:13) : They care about their health and well-being, but that begs the question: Are they human? Or are they aliens from Planet Green? (today is Alien Abduction Day, btw ) 🙂
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpps/news/dpgoh-alien-abduction-day-lands-again-fc-20100319_6648542
Gareth (16:00:24) :
Seems to me like WWF have wangled their way onto a massive patch of rainforest that isn’t capable of being managed in that way even if they wanted to. How can it be a credible carbon sink?
—
Don’t ask awkward questions. It’ll be managed by doing nothing, other than counting the cash rolling in, or mismanaged. It’s risk free forest at the moment as it’s not under threat. The forest that is threatened is being cut back and people are discovering remains of populations that lived there before. So it’s being restored to agricultural use as it was hundreds of years ago.
Is a mature patch of rainforest a carbon sink?
No, of course not, and the people running WWF cannot be stupid enough to think it is. This objection is frequently raised, and always ignored by the Carbon freaks, because it doesn’t fit the agenda.
The only way you can get carbon out of the atmosphere is through active farming. Grow something which you then remove from the system, rather than let rot back into it.
You grow wheat, say, and once you’ve taken the kernels you plough the stems back into the soil rather than collecting them as straw or burning them off.
Another way we could actively remove carbon is to stop recycling paper! Old paper doesn’t contaminate land-fill so there is no need to expensively recycle it if we want to remove carbon. We should be growing more trees for paper which we then sequester.
Since I think the whole CO2 thing is a beat-up I’m going to continue to recycle paper myself. But I don’t get why a Greenie would.
With billions of dollars at stake it is no wonder that the science is always settled. The U.S. government is intent on allowing this massive fraud to continue, one can only guess at the payoffs to many of these elected officials.
“Not A Carbon Cow (16:41:32) :
I don’t see any suggestion in this article or the linked EU referendum article regarding whether this is $60 billion per year, or $60 billion once. I assume the desire would of course be per year.”
It is in EURef … this is the valuation from the ARPA areas up until 2050 … on the basis of the UNFCCC notional valuation for a CER. WWF estimates the yield at $5-6 billion a year … one assumes that is in the expectation of the carbon price increasing – which it would do if the other part of the dream ticket materialised: cap and trade in the US. Without that, the carbon price would crash … not that it can get much lower than it is already.
Of course, if they rolled out REDD to cover Africa and Asia, then it would be worth tens of billions a year, again assuming cap and trade is in place.
Dennis Nikols (15:09:22) :
Semi-immortals with superhuman powers or demagogues? Aside from your slip of the ‘pen’ (and the pipe smoking) I’m in agreement with you. The extent of the power grab entailed in this scam is horrifying.
ScientistforTruth:
I was not aware of the Nazi-roots of WWF through its first president. I’m going to do some research on this one, but this contention is not really shocking given that the Nazis were more interested in environmental issues and nature conservancy than any other European government or nation in the Nazi era.
Richard North (17:04:29) :
“It is in EURef … this is the valuation from the ARPA areas up until 2050 … on the basis of the UNFCCC notional valuation for a CER.”
Thank you, I missed that.
This is why there is so much establishment resistance to admitting that the crusade to stop anthropogenic global warming was based on a hoax. It’s not about the science; it’s about the money.
In the Booker column:
The lure of ‘green’ pots of gold worth billions in ‘carbon credits’ is what sustains the AGW propaganda machine, with governments, NGOs, corporations, the financial world, and the media all hanging on to this balloon.
That is why once Obama has the so-called ‘Healthcare’ bill passed by the House, you will see a revival of the infamous ‘Cap and Trade’ bill in the Senate. The Obamba administration wants the money to fund its continued socialization of America, which cannot be accomplished just with higher taxes.
How do we shoot down that giant financial balloon? Uncovering the fraudulent science, and Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and others have done, will certainly help, but it like shooting BBs. We need a cannon.
/Mr Lynn
It’s NOT the environment stupid!!
It’s the money/prestige/power/ego, or something, but it has gone past the environment, sadly.
Most, I’m sure, know that the “logical solution” to all our modern problems will be probably the “logical solution” humans have employed so often in the past 6 million years to resolve BIG “modern problems” of every era.
Frequently, “the solution” seemed to come as a surprise –though many ‘could feel it in their bones’ years beforehand. Often, “the solution” took much longer than anyone thought possible. Solutions can be that way sometimes.
Humans have a very simple solution to the BIG problems that they just can’t seem to resolve. If you know anything about ‘Human Nature’ you know I’m speaking true.
Sometimes, Mother Nature pre-empts Human Nature and the BIG problems are resolved without anyone needing to resort to the Final Solution.
When the cave gets crowded tempers flare and water becomes a problem.
So, in layman’s language:
1. A worthless plot of land in the middle of nowhere is acquired.
2. The owner, ‘green’ or otherwise, gets to sell a lot of something it does not produce.
3. Owner gets rich, buys more worthless land and then repeats process.
The obvious flaw, of course, is if no one wants to buy the intangible something which is neither produced, nor deliverable, nor wanted.
This has got to be one of the greatest marketing cons of all times.
Where were they when the Wild Mustangs, Americas symbol of freedom were rounded up? Too busy counting money I presume!
Who would have thought ranchland in semi-arid West Texas and the Amazon rainforest would have so much in common.
A rancher I know received a cold call (global warming pun!) from a Chicago carbon trader telling him how much he could make selling his carbon credits, with the trader making commissions, of course. The rancher laughed as he told the story, about the money that might be made out of thin air.
“Richard Telford (16:24:23) :
This story is incredible. Literally. The total amount of money that has been proposed for REDD is about $30 billion for 2010-2012. This is half the amount that Booker thinks the WWF is going to get from 20 million acres of Brazilian rainforest plus an undisclosed area in Mexico. 20 million acres is a tiny fraction of the 1.4 billion acres of Amazonian forest – how could it possibly get all the REDD money.”
60 billion divided by 20 million is 3000, that’s 3000$ per acre. Assuming a CER price of 10$ per ton CO2 that’s 300 tons CO2 equivalent per acre. Entirely realistic numbers i think, what makes you think that’s unrealistic? It’s quite a lot of wood. And if you can make people pay 10$ for such a carbon credit you’re set to make tons of money.
After they’ve sold the CERs they’ll chop it down for added profit i think… all you need to do is change one law…
Correction: “How do we shoot down that giant financial balloon? Uncovering the fraudulent science, and Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and others have done, will certainly help, but it like shooting BBs. We need a cannon.”
Should be: “How do we shoot down that giant financial balloon? Uncovering the fraudulent science, as Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and others have done, will certainly help, but it like shooting BBs. We need a cannon.” /Mr L
Mooloo (16:57:56) :
“Is a mature patch of rainforest a carbon sink?”
No.
One can create a carbon sink by growing vegetation with a greater weight of carbon than existed before. Like grassland into forest.
But the fate of all grass and all wood (except for coal-like burial processes) is eventual oxidation to produce GHG (mainly CO2), be it by burning, eating, biological decay, termites or whatever. Decay might take decades, but it is inexorable.
A VALID carbon sink requires the increased carbon mass per hectare to be maintained IN PERPETUITY. That is, forever. Otherwise the effect on GHG is just a temporary blip when management ceases and the vegetation returns to a natural state.
There should be no funds paid for land regeneration as up-front one-offs. There has to be a method where payment is kept linked to the weight of sequestered carbon. If the planted forest is harvested, the carbon is decreased and the proportionate money goes back to the donor.
It’s like Ross McKitrick’s proposal that GHG taxes are tied to actual climate changes.
Keep on repeating: Schemes that get money for planting trees have to maintain the carbon sequestration forever, or the money must be repaid.
The Woods Hole Research Center is a well funded advocacy group that steals legitimacy through its name.
The group has been central to the AGW scare, so anything they say or do, particularly as it relates to the Amazon, where they have been investing quite heavily is recent years, is suspect.
I keep getting donation solicitation from eco groups. At first it was the WWF. Now it is some other funded by a Kennedy. Yeah, that has no hidden agenda. (end sarcasm) The one I received today had on the front “Do you trust oil companies with the fate of polar bears?”
I’ve had enough. I’m sending the pre-paid envelope back saying this:
“Of course you probably already know that polar bear populations are either stable or increasing. But that fact won’t allow you to fleece people out of money. The truth isn’t scary. Of course you probably already know Arctic ice has increased drastically over the past two years. But that fact won’t allow you to fleece people out of money. And, oh by the way, the Antarctic had a record high in ice coverage in 2009. The very sad truth is that evil oil companies are saints compared to you. I’d trust an oil company over you any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I’d trust an oil company more than you because Big Oil has far FAR less money than Big Environment. You won’t get any money from me. Because I am your worst nightmare: someone who actually bothers to check data. Enjoy your dirty money, but you won’t get any from me. I rather spend my money to help the earth, not to fill your bank account so that you can continue to lie and cheat people out of money. Sometimes I wonder the environments sleep at night knowing how much they cheat people out of money. How can your conscience take it?
I hope you’ll do some research into climate change. But I doubt you will. The truth isn’t profitable. I am not rich, but I just made some crazy study and said humans are to blame. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. I hope you enjoyed the warm weather with the longer growing seasons, because those days are coming to an end. And all the “homogenized” data, all the cherry-picked results, all the scare tactics, all the baseless accusations without proof, all the violations of the tenants of science, and all the strong-armed silencing of dissent so essential to science will not stop it. Climategate just accelerated the inevitable. I am not funded by an oil company.”
The Penultimate Solution
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/worldmap.cfm
We really don’t need to spend a bunch of money that we don’t have. We’re broke! Everybody but a politician know that.
Soooo… We already have the means at our disposal to solve this problem in short order. The link above shows the current location of active and sort’a active volcanoes.
The Americans, Russians, Chinese, British, French, North Koreans, and four or more who deny it, are itching to get rid of some old Nucs and reduce their inventory. Now, for the benefit of all mankind, in the name of humanity, they have the perfect ‘excuse’ to make a bunch of BIG BANGs and blow up some volcanoes.
What’s wrong with this solution? What are the obvious drawbacks? Well, it is very inexpensive. It is logical. It does get rid of some old nuc’s. Ah… I know, you’re going to say I’m crazy for suggesting something so dangerous.
It isn’t too dangerous, is it?
Richard North (14:22:41) :
“So, Woods Hole Research Center supported the WWF in this scheme. It is rather interesting to note that John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor, has had a long-time association with the WHRC:”
That’s the next project … WHRC seems to be a nexus of influence, playing a key role in the whole scam”
Richard
Also look at this link – http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
Holdren, Schneider, Mead, Wellwood, and the WHRC are part of Mead’s 1975 conference in the US.
Now this is funny. Aldous Huxley (“Brave New World”) is the brother of Julian Huxley (Founder of the WWF).
“The first Director-General of UNESCO, evolutionist and humanist Julian Huxley, wrote of The crowded world in his Evolutionary Humanism (1964), calling for a World population policy. Huxley openly criticised Communist and Roman Catholic attitudes to birth control, population control and overpopulation.”
So i think what these two brothers had in common was they were very much concerned with the notion of freedom of the individual and the destruction of said freedom. Whoever said that it’s Napiers fault that the WWF became what it is now has a different understanding of crappiness as i.
Richard North
Following link describes Margaret Mead’s 1975 conferenfence and Woods Hole Research Centre figures prominently – Holdren, Schneider, etc.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf