Hopes for carbon hub in jeopardy
The Australian – Full story here. Note who is protesting at the slow delivery of an ETS….
AUSTRALIA’S ambitions to establish itself as an Asian carbon trading hub risk being dashed because of delays in the emissions trading scheme….
This was the assessment of bankers, lawyers and investors yesterday at the second Carbon Markets Expo on the Gold Coast. The expo has experienced a sharp decline in delegates this year, with numbers down from 1200 in its inaugural year to 750…
“As much as people talk about Australia creating a new carbon finance hub, I don’t think it will happen,” said Optim Legal’s Cameron Kelly, a lawyer specialising in carbon markets and credits. “If the CPRS does not get up, we’ll miss the boat.”
So a lawyer is afraid we’ll miss the boat. Which boat? That would be the boat-full of money from Australian workers that’s headed for major international banks, right?
(Isn’t that the kind of boat we would want to catch, but with a tactical nuclear sub and an armed SWAT team?)
After two years of distilling this down, it’s come to me that it only takes six words:
Banks want us to trade carbon
Banks want us to trade carbon.
Years from now historians will write about gullible leaders who go down in history as the ones who sold their nations to Goldman Sachs. Fools who thought they might look important trying to save the planet, but who instead were negligent, ignoring the science and slavishly committing their productive workers to pay tribute to a parasitic layer of financial houses.
Just as Woodrow Wilson came to bitterly regret setting up the US Federal Reserve. Josiah Stamp (1880-1941, Director of the Bank of England) warned us.
There are people out there who manufacture money from nothing. Literally. The rest of the world has to earn it, but some are in it from the start–where money is created from the ether.
Banking is not a secret but no one tells you how it works… it’s hard to get your head around it, but if everyone understood, some aspects would be outlawed tomorrow (just like they used to be).
Greens and bankers make strange bedfellows. The bankers know where the Greens are coming from, but the Greens need to find out why bankers, “the paper aristocracy”, are so keen to save the planet. It’s an unholy alliance.
With Copenhagen coming up, we are close to a crunch point. To reach a wider audience I need things like copyright free photos for example. It would help people put this in perspective and understand what we mean when we ask for empirical evidence. I’m putting together another skeptics handbook right now as well as some articles. Things are urgent. Once legislation is in place it will be very very hard to unwind.
As well as photographs, we need translators, and Adobe photoshoppers. Thanks!
[Photo 1 (right): No I'm not asking for banners, but in the spirit of grassroots action this is Greg Balle and I painting our 8 metre banner in Bali 2007.]
The Question: Do increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere pose an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic change in earth’s temperature in the future?
Of 1022 people polled, 55% agreed and 31% opposed (including the 19% who strongly opposed). Nearly half, or 45% are not convinced a catastrophe is on the way due to carbon dioxide. Source: OnlineOpinion
My sense is that the curve of opinion on this complex science is the inverse of what you would expect. Normally on a complex scientific topic, the most common answer would be neither agree nor disagree (or don’t know), and the strong opinions would taper off like a bell curve with few people being sure either way. Instead opinions are polarized. “Catastrophic” is strong language. One side here is passionately wrong.
46 % of Australians surveyed believe the Emissions Trading Scheme should be delayed.
With 3000 times as much funding supporting the side with professional PR teams, the endless repetition of the assumption that man-made carbon dioxide causes warming is becoming a liability in itself. The more the advocates for action whitewash, the more people grow suspicious. They more they bully, the more people get a gut feeling that [...]
Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer have made a desperately needed and polished documentary. Once again, as resistance to the one-sided coverage of the greenhouse crisis grows we can marvel at the determination of people to find a new way to spread the word that there is another side to the story. Once again, grass-roots citizens rise up to fight the witchdoctors who promise to save us from their own exaggerated threats. The indomitable human spirit shines, but sadly so does the destructive power of ideology without rational debate.
Over the last ten years I’ve abandoned all the green groups that I was a member of, because they failed to use logic and reason and appeared more religious than scientific, so I’m delighted to have found one that holds as it’s first priority that “policies are set and decisions are made on the basis of facts, evidence and scientific analysis.” Say hello to The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF).
I’m speaking next Tuesday at their annual conference in Canberra, “Environmentalism: A Climate of Conflict”. [Link ]
Here’s an example of SciComm Pollution — an article that leaves the world slightly less enlightened than they would have been had it not existed. It’s also proof that the media blackout works so well that even theoretically educated people like, say, an archaeologist, are unaware of basic uncontroversial scientific truths. Here’s Michael Berry, in the Salt Lake Tribune, having trouble reasoning, missing the point, being fully a decade out of date, and acting unwittingly as a public relations agent for a giant bureaucracy.
He tries to claim Senator Orrin Hatch and The Skeptics Handbook are wrong on the Vostok ice cores.
17 contributors have published
1760 posts that generated