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.
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.