The official numbers of partygoers to the 17th Conference of Parties in Durban, South Africa, shape up like this:
Figure 1. Theoretical distribution of the 14,570 partygoers at the Durban 17th Conference of Partygoers. Numbers indicate total delegates from that group.
Slightly more government delegates than NGO representatives. However, as in all things climate, it’s a bit more complex than that.
Anthony points out in a recent post that the proposal on taxation submitted by Bolivia was in fact written by Oxfam. But it’s not just some random Oxfam connection. The Bolivian country delegation itself contains an Oxfam member. And they’re not the only country to do that. The Bangladesh country delegation has three Oxfam members. Belgium has two Oxfam members.
Belgium? I can understand Bolivia needing some help, but Belgium?
Are there really so few government and university climate experts in Belgium that you guys have to include two Oxfam members in your official government delegation? For shame, Belgium. Let those buggers pay their own way, why should the Belgian taxpayer have to stay home and pay for the Oxfam champagne and taxis and hotel rooms?
In total, Oxfam has no less than nine people in various official government delegations. World Resources Institute have two people in official country delegations, as does the Rainforest Alliance. Nature Conservancy and 350.org each have one. And then there are a host of small, local country NGO’s represented in various official government delegations.
Their numbers all pale next to the perennial Oscar winner, the group who almost always wins the Best Actor Award for their long-running mocumentary film series “Activists Pretending to be Scientists”, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). They have no less than fourteen WWF members masquerading as government delegates.
NGOs are not the only offenders in this regard. UNDP people seem to like to party. In addition to the official UNDP delegation, there are eight UNDP employees among the official country delegations.
The oddities don’t end there. Lebanon’s country delegation of 12 people includes the Head of Carbon Sales and Trading of the Standard Bank Plc.
India has four public school students in their delegation, along with the German AID representative.
The Ghana delegation includes someone described as a technician working for the Japan Broadcasting Corp.
Indonesia has someone from the Zoological Society of London.
Papua New Guinea has a representative from the Carbon War Room Corporation.
Italy has four members of the Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change, and one bodyguard.
Ireland has a representative from the “Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice”.
Grenada has two people from Climate Analytics GmbH, which seems to be a company whose business is to provide advice to countries on how to scam the carbon markets.
The overall winner has to be Guinea-Bissau. Their country delegation has 19 people. Only five of them seem to work for the Guinea-Bissau government. The delegation appears to be headed by a man who styles himself as:
Association member, Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association
Dang, that’s a hard one to overtop. The Guinea-Bissau delegation also contains a man from the Global Environment Fund, a host of people with no given affiliation, the International Project Director, Awareness and Advocacy who works for the Centre for Climate Change and Environmental Studies, and mirabile dictu, someone whose affiliation is given simply as “Tianjin Police”.
I have put all of these oddities, along with many people with no given affiliation, in the category “Unknown”. My quick and unscientific analysis gave me the following counts of the actual as opposed to the nominal affiliations of the partygoers.
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with the NGO representatives and unknown people removed from the country delegations and placed in their own categories.
Six thousand official NGO representatives, including those masquerading as government representatives. Five thousand government delegates. Fifteen hundred media. A thousand mystery contestants, camp followers, and bodyguards. The beauty parlor is filled with sailors, the circus is in town, and the NGO folks outnumber everyone else.
Please, Congress, please, can we defund these climate parties? We’ve spent millions of dollars and burned millions of litres of jet fuel to haul these parasites to their annual party on some lovely tourist beach somewhere, Rio one year, Cancun the next, Bali the next.
The only thing we’ve gotten from them in return is fraud, waste, and mismanagement. Now, these unelected agenda-driven folks are agitating to tax a host of transactions worldwide. Congresspersons, could we ring the bell on this dangerous trend? International taxes enacted by the UN in any form are a very bad idea. Get rid of this band of thieves before they bankrupt us all.
w.
PS—The official data on the partygoers is available as Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. My thanks to Ecotretas for the info.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Should the NGOs at Durban lose their tax exempt status in the US because of their shameless lobbying?
The worst aspect of all this is that these Blackbeards are trying to do on a national scale what some liberal policies have done to the black poulation in the US, convince them that they are owed and victims, a form of class warfare on a global scale. It is very tempting to blame others for ones problems, both indivduals and nations. This global manipulation, combined with increasing poverty can easily lead to world conflict.
One important aspect of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) is that in all fields of endeavor (not just climate) they represent a primary means to recycle government “donor” funds (i.e. taxes) back to donor country insiders.
For example (this is all a money flow):
Tax $$-> World Bank / U.N. $$ -> recipient countries get $$ -> recipient countries establish questionable “projects” -> $$ to NGOs who “support and enable” questionable “projects” -> $$ to NGO contractors and employees, and corrupt recipient country government officials who take their $$ “skim.”
This has been going on for decades, not just in climate but in other fields such as agriculture and computer projects (“modernization”).
So it’s no surprise that in the chart above the NGO attendees outnumber the country delegations. It’s all just a big money game based on taxpayer handouts.
By the way, I agree with other posters that the chart colors and legends are not very clear.
Some unresolved issues with the relationship it looks like . . .
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-12-07-ministers-at-cop17-deserve-oscars-say-ngos
Ecotretas says:
Spain’s delegation is comprised only of women!
————————–
Yeeaah Baby!
Garry says:
December 7, 2011 at 7:41 am
One important aspect of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) is that in all fields of endeavor (not just climate) they represent a primary means to recycle government “donor” funds (i.e. taxes) back to donor country insiders.
———————————————
It’s worse than we thought.
Environmental Group(s) donate and help get friendly administration elected. => Environmental Group conspires with administration’s EPA to sue the EPA to regulate Carbon. => EPA lays down but not before generating $millions in legal fees for Environmental Group’s lawyers paid for by tax payers. => EPA “loses” in court and has to enact carbon regulations. => EPA shells out grants to Environmental Group(s) to “spread awareness” about carbon. => Environmental Group(s) recoup their donations and then some. => Rinse repeat.
I am reposting this here since it fits better…
Activists and NGOs
Several years ago I looked into NGOs because of the WTO/Food/Animal ID issue. Here is some relevant stuff from my notes. (The links may no longer work)
BACKGROUND:
From a history blog:
Remember the Students for a Democratic Society on campus when you were in college?
THE ORIGINS OF NGOs
Remember Maurice Strong, Chair of the First Earth Summit in 1972 that started CAGW? The guy who said “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns….” in his opening remarks at Earth Summit II in 1992.
In brief Maurice Strong worked in Saudi Arabia for a Rockefeller company, Caltex, in 1953. He left Caltex in 1954 to worked at high levels in banking and oil. By 1971, he served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 1972 was Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. He was Co-founder of the WWF and Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the UN.
Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
NGOs REPLACE VOTERS in USA
By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but the implementation of the “regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” [ http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm ] These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.
THE BEHIND THE SCENES PLAYERS
Alternate links: http://www.livescience.com/9704-world-stocks-controlled-select.html
http://wprorev.com/2009/08/scientific-study-find-just-few-funds.htm
The whole Rockefeller/Strong/Saudi/Khashoggi/CIA/Bush/oil/banking interconnections are worth pursuing considering the 1973 Oil Crisis bankrupted third World Countries so they had to get World bank/IMF loans with SAPs strings controlling their governments. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance, (Maurice Strong of course was a member) was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International.
Kissinger/rockefeller/Saudi Royal Family connection: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch27.html
Strong’s web site: http://www.mauricestrong.net/ in google states: Maurice Strong globalized the environmental movement.
richard verney says:
December 7, 2011 at 3:07 am
Re:
Would that it were true.
Wall Street Journal had some coverage of the Durban debacle last night. Actually it was the first news I’d seen, and it wasn’t good:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577080223812409562.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
China knows its sputtering economy is dependent on cheap energy. You’ve got to wonder why they would do this.
The best analogy is that they are proposing a high-stakes game of chicken, in which they have every intention of swerving at the last second. Not to swerve would be tantamount to suicide.
Here’s what China evidently put on the table Monday (from Tuesday’s WSJ article):
Bill Parsons says:
December 7, 2011 at 10:06 am
richard verney says:
The WSJ article is behind a paywall, can’t read it. However, I’ll agree with the “professor from Peking university” that the Chinese are not going to sign a damn thing, even by 2020, unless it doesn’t bind them to do a damn thing ….
w.
“Are there really so few government and university climate experts in Belgium that you guys have to include two Oxfam members in your official government delegation?”
Don’t be too hard on Belgium, since it is really not even a country, does not have a government, and does not have any money: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/how_to_make_sense_of_the_european_union_disaster.html
Weird.
“…the Chinese are not going to sign a damn thing, even by 2020, unless it doesn’t bind them to do a damn thing ….”
On top of that, the Chinese are no doubt scheming to get a hefty cut of that spondulax.
Forget whether they’re representing NGOs, governments or the UN I’m still trying to get my head around the fact that over 10,000 people are getting an all expenses paid vacation to Durban for doing, essentially, nothing.
We Belgians have send Van Ypersele to Durban and his zeal will make more than up for the lack of knowledge of the rest of our delegation.
Brilliant bit of detective work there, Willis. To this point in time you are the ONLY individual who has ever brought the NGO/UN/Climate cartel into the general public’s day to day thinking. For the most part many of us have had a somewhat fuzzy picture of NGOs as semi-beauty pageant contestants who only want world peace without the bikinis to make them interesting.
However, Willis’ article gives us a whole new view of the UN itself. And how the third world and in many cases the first world conspire, and I use the word conspire deliberately, with AGW climate science plus local, regional, and national NGO groups to SELL the POLITICS of AGW to the western world. Not the science of AGW – but the POLITICS of the pro-AGW side to the western general public. The UN itself IS a full partner in this conspiracy – a hidden conspiracy only brought to light by Willis’ article showing how the third world and many members of the first world “deliberately” use NGOs as their “official” members. Moreover, the UN itself uses groups such as Greenpeace to even write IPCC reports.
The damage these NGO groups do back home are massive – they act together and fund protests and court cases all over the western world virtually bringing modern business to a complete stoppage. We need far better information on these groups – who funds them for a start. How do they always seem to be quoted in TV or newspaper articles? What is the connection between reporters and NGOs? How do we find that knowledge? What is the connections between NGOs and local, regional, and national governments? Via who? Etc., etc.,
morgo says:
December 7, 2011 at 2:46 am
///////////////////////////////////////////
Morgo
I have been watching the Aussie weather forecasts for some time when global details are given, and have noted the cold weather out there, and have been thinking that it is as warm (or even warmer) here in Spain and we are in winter and you guys are in summer! Unless the temps rise soon, it looks like you guys are in for a poor summer. Don’t worry, I am sure that you will be told that 2011 is one of the hottest years on record. .
Look, I know some of you are above this, but I’m not.
Now that there’s absolutely no danger of any of this nonsense doing any more damage than has already been set in place, I’m getting on the gravy train.
I’m old enough and have been through enough to feel as “entitled” to a sinecure as any of these quango hippies “Occupying” 5-star hotels.
If I don’t see you in Doha for next year’s annual Conference of Partiers #18, then rest assured you’ll be in my thoughts as I write a scathing hyperbolic indictment of you, your family and your entire existence.
Cheers, evil capitalist lackeys! And watch that carbon footprint!
http://www.fourseasons.com/doha
“Few destinations can compete with the unique hospitality that awaits visitors to Qatar. Plush, upmarket hotels combine impeccable and discreet service with wonderful restaurants and fantastic leisure facilities. ”
http://www.experienceqatar.com/pages/homepage/corporate/hotels.php
Ooohhh… can’t wait to see what I get with “discreet service.” I will definitely max out my ethical climate justice expense account. (Note to lackeys: make sure you pay your FULL tax debt on time this year. I’ll be needing it).
What you do is “overbuild” coal power plants at the same time you crank up nuclear plant construction. Then just as the nuclear plants are set to start coming online, you make some agreement with other countries where everyone agrees to freeze their CO2 output. So everyone agree. Now at this point, China starts bringing the nuclear plants on line so their available generation capacity is increasing while the other nations can’t increase their generation capacity without building inefficient windmills and solar that are basically useless at industrial scale. As a result, energy costs skyrocket in the other countries while they continue to decline in China.
Then maybe China agree to actual cuts in CO2 and starts taking some of their oldest coal plant offline as more nuclear generation is brought into the grid.
The reason why they would do it is because they have no aversion whatsoever to building nuclear power. They have no problem conceptually with replacing all of their coal with nuclear. They know that the West does. So they know they have a natural advantage in this game because we will checkmate ourselves.
“other aspect of the fuel cycle” mean reprocessing spent fuel so it is recycled rather than buried like we want to do.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
Times must be hard for the WWF. They went to Copenhagen with more than 120 delegates (pdf – see page 177 – 179) under their own name. This year it’s just over 50.
The numbers in Durban is half that of Copenhagen. Nobody brought George Clooney this time!(see page 135 of the pdf linked to above).
Willis Eschenbach says: @ur momisugly December 7, 2011 at 10:29 am
Bill Parsons says: @ur momisugly December 7, 2011 at 10:06 am
richard verney says: @ur momisugly December 7, 2011 at 3:07 am
Re:
However, one particpant (a professor from Peking University) said that China would not be signing any deal before 2020.
….The WSJ article is behind a paywall, can’t read it. However, I’ll agree with the “professor from Peking university” that the Chinese are not going to sign a damn thing, even by 2020, unless it doesn’t bind them to do a damn thing ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If China thinks it can get it’s Nuclear up and running fast, esp nuclear powered shipping they may go for the tax on CO2 for shipping or even just a CO2 tax IF it kicks in in about ten years or so. or doesn’t include them.
With the NIMBYs in the EU & USA ,it will put China at the distinct advantage of having non CO2 power while the west does not. This will put them long term in control of world shipping.
So the environmental NGOs in the EU and USA are dealing our countries a double whammy not only by wanting to tax us into the ground but by allowing China, India and Africa the advantage of nuclear power while we are stuck with windmills and solar panels.
As we know from history, shipping (merchants) is where the real money/control is.
Biles Gates is FUNDING some of China’s nuclear research: http://goodcleantech.pcmag.com/future-tech/291415-bill-gates-building-a-safer-nuclear-reactor-with-china
“….a number of countries have decided to move away from reliance on nuclear energy due to safety concerns. Leading the way has been Germany, which plans to be completely nuclear-free by 2022. However, in spite of this, a number of countries have plans to adopt nuclear energy, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.”
Key to China’s nuclear fuel cycle is this:
To understand why, please see “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste” Scientific American, December 2005
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SciAm-Dec05.pdf
The one-world totalitarians already have plans in place for when climalarmism finally fails. Don’t doubt it for a minute. See this blog post on WUWT for one proposition that strongly advocates that all scientists should work for the government, just to avoid another scandal like the CAGW bruhaha.
This U of Duke professor says that his being a Marxist is
“very irrelevant to any discussion of the value of government funded science, basic or otherwise”.
He also plainly states that, in order to avoid being an idiot, one must be partially (but not completely) Marxist.
He does not believe in either leaven or Santa Claus.
Where do the academics fit in the pie of all those involved in the UN takeover bid, for which the CAGW farce is only one strategy?