- This giant crime--a market designed by Goldman Sachs often hiding in island bank accounts--could have been stopped but for the corrupted 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 decision on the status of CO2. It is obvious now the judges could not possibly have had correct information. Weak, greedy politicians are complicit. The decision is now a sham and has allowed the greatest crime against humanity, so-called man made catastrophic global climate change- to continue.
- The City of London, nexus of carbon thugs, gets special mention. This article seems to accept the idea of so-called man-made global warming but makes the case that the whole climate industry is a criminal operation.
The discussions at the climate change conference in Copenhagen last year focused on "developed" and "developing" nations, and the new market for carbon offsets. Industrialized governments created these carbon permits
and allocated them to the largest multinationals with the largest carbon footprints.
- The latter architects of the system, Goldman Sachs, with foreign subsidiaries criss-crossing the globe
- not only designed the huge carbon market, but also hold
- a 10% share in Al Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) - the pilot carbon trading program in the United States.
One well-publicized engine of the new carbon trade is the Clean Development Mechanism, which enables polluters to circumvent caps by financing projects in the developing world that emit little or no carbon. Yet, according to studies by Stanford University's Energy and Sustainable Development Program,
- "between a third and two-thirds" of CDM projects do not represent real reductions.
- So, as the G-20 spends its time creating a carbon trade market that does little to reduce carbon emissions, multinationals continue to expand their extractive enterprises,
- to flow into offshore locations that are themselves threatened by the rising waters associated with global warming. ...
- in the lead-up to last December's Copenhagen climate summit.
The sad irony is that, despite producing little in the way of carbon emissions,
- both island nations may have contributed to their own demise.
- More than 50% of AOSIS members are secrecy jurisdictions, misleadingly labeled as offshore centers and tax havens.
- These economies - characterized by opaque legal and financial services ensuring little or no disclosure, high levels of client confidentiality and
- few requirements for substantial economic activity -
Such island hubs act as key facilitators of the network by providing offshore financial services, remotely controlled from onshore head offices such as
- the City of London.
- The money that could otherwise go toward reducing the carbon footprint of multinationals and funding sustainable development in developing countries is
- Islands of money
- They could also go toward the adaption and mitigation funds needed by developing and emerging nations, which the UN puts at $4 billion to $86 billion annually.
Most island economies are politically and economically dependent on major economies like the United Kingdom and the United States.
- They compete to be the offshore repository of choice by offering opaque financial and legal services and low or zero tax rates.
The source of funds
Nigeria is Africa's largest oil producer and the fifth-largest exporter to the United States. Since the 1960s, the country's political and military elite has stolen more than $400 billion in oil revenues from Nigeria's citizenry and deposited it in secrecy jurisdictions such as Switzerland. Meanwhile, despite the extravagant promises of multinationals like Chevron operating in the country, Nigeria's people have become progressively poorer.
- The extractive industries have generated considerable opposition, human rights violations, and violence. The mass ecological degradation is pegged at $5 billion per annum.
- Although Africa occupies a small carbon footprint, the continent's autocratic regimes in Angola, Nigeria, the Congo, and Gabon are located at the base of the commodity chain and depend primarily on the capital-intensive extractive industries that supply the world's largest carbon-intensive engines with a significant share of fuel.
- from Asia Times "Climate Change's Secret Weapon," by Khadija Sharife, 2/26/10, (Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus) via commenter on WUWT
2 comments:
Very slip-shod research. Posts like this do the movement more harm than good by proving correct the accusations that we only cherry-pick our facts and misrepresent others.
Look up AOSIS on-line, for example. It wasn't formed "in the run-up to Copenhagen" : it's been around for many years.
CCX is owned by a UK company, Climate Exchange plc. Al Gore's Generation Investment Management owns a 2.98% stake in Climate Exchange. So "Al Gore's CCX" is misrepresentation. This kind of writing hurts us more than it discredits Gore.
Please do more research and triple-check your facts.
Since I don't know you I can't assume which side you are on, ie that you and I are on the same side of an issue. As to the 'cherry picking' point, I'm glad you mentioned it. A political movement has advanced unfettered for 30 years or so with the goal of demonizing Americans, destroying our country, enslaving us, and transferring our earnings in perpetuity to corrupt UN grifters, equatorial dictators, and billionaire hedge fund thugs. The movement's weapon to effect this change has been to cite with absolute certainty that excess CO2 is causing imminent starvation and death to millions. They claim our enslavement is justified by the work of "climate scientists."
So, yes, this movement should expect to make every last detail and computer code of its catastrophic findings available and cherry-picked. The facts you object to in the post were not mine but the author's and I noted that he seemed to believe in man made global warming but objected to the climate industry. As to the founding date of an organization seeking to get billions a year from US taxpayers in climate reparations, you can place your objection with the author. There are countless organizations around the world who've been up and running for years with similar goals. As to the CCX being owned by a UK company, I'm well aware of that and have posted other articles noting the connection. Without the UK and its efforts in the so-called climate industry, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today-I'll be happy to give them that credit. Your immense sadness at hurting "our" side should be addressed to the author of the article. From what you said here, none of the criticisms are substantive, that is, they do not take away from the thesis. I guess if you're invested in a carbon trading fund that's not doing well you might feel differently.
Post a Comment