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.
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 @ur momisugly 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 Klijn 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”