Copenhagen Day 6 – protests dominated by "anti-capitalist speeches"


Anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist…

Anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist…

The media is full of the protests yesterday for “tough action” on “global warming”, but the reality is that the environmental movement has been hijacked by an extreme left-wing, anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist agenda. Even the Sydney Morning Herald admits it. One of the banners read “Change the politics. Not the climate”! They don’t give a toss about the climate, they only want to change the system. And, naturally, the protests turned violent. What is it with the left and violence?

Tens of thousands of protesters have marched through Copenhagen calling for tough action from the UN climate conference, after police arrested about 400 rioters at the start of the demonstration.

Organisers of the rally had repeatedly urged the crowd to remain calm and friendly before the march began on Saturday, and the speeches were dominated by calls for social justice and critiques of global capitalism.

But soon after the demonstration started, police arrested about 400 protesters, masked youths dressed in black who threw bricks and firecrackers and smashed windows in the city centre.

Around 50 police in riot gear moved in, forcing the protesters to the ground and bundling them into vans. (source)

And in London, Barmy Prince Charlie has kept the climate madness flag flying by issuing a memorandum with Nobel laureates that compares the threat of “global warming” to that of nuclear destruction!

The group of Nobel winners, together with Prince Charles, issued a memorandum which declared the best chance of stopping catastrophic climate change is to keep the predicted temperature rise at or below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).

Without action, they envisaged three times that temperature rise, which would mean global warming would cause a huge rise in sea levels, and swamp the cities of London, Paris and Copenhagen.

The communique is likely to influence world leaders at the forthcoming international conference on climate change in Copenhagen at the end of this year. [Only if they’re completely stupid – oh, they probably are… – Ed]

More than 20 Nobel Laureates, including President Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu, gathered at the meeting in London to discuss the threat of global warming.

After three days the St James’s Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium concluded that climate change posed a danger of similar proportions to “the threat posed to civilisation by the advent of thermonuclear weapons”.

The memorandum read: “The St James’s Palace Memorandum calls for a global deal on climate change that matches the scale and urgency of the human, ecological and economic crises facing the world today. (source)

After that load of cobblers, we really need some sanity, courtesy of Piers Ackerman:

Professor Kellow, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth report, said despite the denials made by key scientists whose work has been used to support the global warming theory, the leaked emails show the manipulation of the analysis was “in many ways worse than many of us expected when we knew about this case from the outside without access to these kinds of exchanges”.

“What you have is evidence of a quite clear willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, you’ve got a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at data so that it can be verified,” Professor Kellow said.

He listed the malpractices as evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, evidence of pressure being placed on editors to reject dissident views on climate science, and then attempts by the lead authors in the IPCC report to keep any opposing peer-reviewed science that has managed to get into the literature out of the IPCC report and, ultimately, ensuring it doesn’t find its way into the all-important summary for policy makers, which, he said, was about all the politicians and bureaucrats read.

The policy makers are now convinced, according to Professor Kellow, that earth’s climate system is like a kind of thermostat in which we can dial in a particular level of CO2 and get a two-degree temperature rise over the next 100 years.

In the professor’s view, “anyone who knows anything about climate science will tell you that that’s nonsense”.

Very expensive nonsense, too, if the farcical plan to salve the consciences of Western Greens by transferring the capital and industries of developed nations to the Third World is agreed to this week in Copenhagen. (source)

Climate sense is hard to come by at the moment…

Nations seek "billions in climate debt"


luis_ferrate

"Put your hands in the air - this is a stick-up."

We did warn you. The Copenhagen treaty (if it were ever signed) would signal the beginning of an era of massive global wealth distribution, with wealthy nations forced to hand over billions to less developed countries as “compensation” for their “climate crimes.” And, as expected, the first demands are already starting to appear:

CENTRAL American nations will demand $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries for damages caused by global warming, the region’s representatives say.

Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called “ecological debt” owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate [pictured right] said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was “an estimate” of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.

[Minister Ferrate] said the region “had never faced” so much drought, aridity, flooding, and precarious food security.

A formal proposal will be presented in Denmark, officials said.

I bet it will. Expect many more demands like this in the future…

Read it here.

"Rich" are to blame for global warming


Life after Copenhagen…

Life after Copenhagen…

The climate nonsense comes thick and fast as we hurtle towards global oblivion at Copenhagen. And with headlines like the above, who would have possibly thought that somehow climate change has been hijacked by the global socialism movement? The politics of greed and envy laid bare:

In Australia, the poor are more likely to only own one car (or none at all), can rarely afford to fly overseas, are less likely to indulge in luxuries such as flat-screen TVs, spa baths, or perpetually heated swimming pools. The poor are in fact the least to blame for the state of the environment.

When was the last time you saw a homeless person burning fossil fuels and shattering the peace with a jet ski on the Murray River? When was the last time you noticed a beggar partying like there’s no tomorrow in the back seat of a Hummer stretch limousine in King Street?

No, those would be the behaviours reserved for those with more dollars than sense to burn.

As writer George Monbiot recently pointed out in The Guardian: “While there’s a weak correlation between global warming and population growth, there’s a strong correlation between global warming and wealth . . . It is the worst kind of paternalism, blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.

So there we have it ladies and gentlemen: we should take our developed Western economies back to the Dark Ages, and all live like sub-Saharan Africans to save the planet. Rich = bad, poor = good. Developed economies = bad, third world = good. Capitalism = bad, socialism = good.

Read it here (where else, The Sydney Moonbat Herald)

G20 fails to agree on finances of "fighting climate change"


Life after Copenhagen…

Life after Copenhagen…

Of course they failed, because despite how much hype surrounds “tackling climate change”, when push comes to shove, governments aren’t really stupid enough to bankrupt their own economies, by handing over billions of dollars to deal with a non-problem.

The G20 talked big but delivered little on climate finance, campaigners said, as the clock ticks down to the summit in Copenhagen next month.

One of the key talking points on Saturday for finance ministers meeting in the Scottish town of St Andrews had been working out how to deliver cash from rich to developing countries [there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, in black and white – Ed] so they can tackle climate change.

The G20 agreed to work for an ambitious outcome” at the UN summit at Copenhagen, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions and “recognised the need to increase significantly and urgently the scale and predictability of finance”.

But there was no agreement on how money should be delivered, although there would be ”further work” on the issue, the final communique said.

Nor was there a clear figure for how much G20 countries would commit.

And then we have to suffer the inevitable complaints from the enviro-headbangers:

The British charity Oxfam’s senior policy adviser, Max Lawson, said: “As the clock ticks towards Copenhagen, the hundreds of millions of people around the world who are already suffering as a result of climate change cannot afford to wait any longer for a deal.”

No exaggeration there, clearly.

Read it here.

UK: Gordon Brown's transaction tax given lukewarm reception


Time warp back to the 1970s

Political version of "Life on Mars"

Gordon Brown is a deep red, old fashioned socialist in the 1970s Labour mold. Whereas Tony Blair was the shiny, spin-obsessed, non-stick façade of “New Labour” (i.e. not really Labour, but Conservatives with compassion), Brown is like a throwback to the days of Jim Callaghan and Denis Healey, to the days of Arthur Scargill and strikes every week and power cuts and garbage piling up in the streets.

So in the dying days of the UK Labour government, with no hope of being re-elected, Brown is trying to impose global socialism for one last time, with a “transaction tax” on all financial institutions, to funnel a proportion of all global financial transactions back to the government for redistribution, one of the beneficiaries of such a tax being “tackling climate change”. But no-one is buying it, thankfully (not even the US):

The proposal, which took delegates by surprise at the [G20] meeting in St Andrew’s overshadowed other items on the agenda.

The US said it would “not support” a transaction tax and Canada added it was “not an idea we would look at”.

The Conservatives said that Downing Street had previously “poured cold water on this proposal” and that the Treasury had called it “unworkable”.

The head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Khan, said he believed the transaction tax was unlikely to be adopted.

“I don’t believe it will be a transaction tax because transactions are very difficult to measure and so it’s very easy to avoid a transaction tax,” he told Sky News.

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner dismissed the idea of such a tax, saying: “That’s not something that we’re prepared to support.”

He told reporters: “This is an idea that has been around for a long time. Many countries have a lot of experience with the design of these kinds of taxes. I think, frankly, the experience has been mixed.”

Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty also rejected the proposal, telling Sky News it was “not something we would be interested in in Canada”.

He added: “We are not in the business of raising taxes, we are in the business of lowering taxes in Canada. It is not an idea we would look at.”

Your time has run out, Gordon. The exit is that way.

Read it here.

The price of inconvenient reality


In an editorial today, The Australian asks some very awkward questions about the economic realities of the ETS, and the global socialism that climate change is advancing:

BOTH domestically and internationally, the price that could be demanded from Australians for our part in cutting greenhouse gas emissions is emerging from a sea of red ink. Earlier estimates suggested that an emissions trading scheme would reap a profit of between $11 billion and $20bn by 2020. Now we learn from the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the scheme is likely to lose money over the next five years. The second reality check was the European Union’s call for industrialised nations to contribute $160bn per annum by 2020 to help developing nations tackle climate change.

The shortfall in ETS revenue makes the prospect of a deal between the Rudd government and the Coalition less likely. It will be impossible to pay for Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed amendments to Labor’s ETS from funds generated through emission permit sales. A fortnight ago, an analysis by Riskmetrics and Innovest Strategic Value Advisors gave an idea of what the Coalition amendments could cost. It found that the amendments could turn an estimated $777 million net surplus in its first year into a $1.8bn deficit.

After years of inflated expectations of what can be achieved in curbing carbon, it is clear that any deal that would make an appreciable difference in emissions levels will be costly. As a responsible global citizen, Australia should play its part. But we have no obligation to join any push to use climate change to redistribute global wealth to assuage the consciences of climate change billionaire Al Gore and social campaigners such as Bono, whose carbon footprints far exceed those of the ordinary Australian taxpayers they expect to foot the bill.

Read it here.

Global socialism begins in Europe


The European Union has agreed to begin a vast transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor by agreeing to throw over US$150 billion every year by 2020 at developing countries to “tackle climate change”:

European Union leaders on Friday reached a deal on how to help developing nations tackle climate change, but without putting a figure to Europe’s contribution, officials said.

We have an agreement,” said Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, at the end of a two-day European summit in Brussels.

“The EU now has a strong negotiating position and the countdown to Copenhagen now has started,” he added, referring to international climate talks in Denmark in December.

“We can now look the rest of the world in the eyes and say we Europeans have done our job,” said EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso at the summit-closing press conference.

“It was essential that the European Union kept its leadership role and we have done that,” he added.

But there is plenty of smoke and mirrors in this announcement, as the leaders are strangely reluctant to actually publish their individual contributions to this huge bill. And Barroso put the inevitable caveat on the agreement, something that Rudd & Co seem unable to grasp in their rush to implement an ETS:

He cautioned that the EU “offers are not a blank cheque… we are ready to act if our partners are ready to deliver.”

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: