The great carbon credit con: Why are we paying the Third World to poison its environment?

In the fields around this giant chemicals factory in Gujarat, the barren soil smells of paint stripper and the water from the well makes you gag. So why has it been given tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer-funded UN ‘green reward points’, which are traded hungrily on the financial markets at huge profit?

The farmers, faces wizened and browned from hours in the harsh Gujarati sun, lower a bucket into a well. It’s a solid-brick cylinder 100ft deep. The sun is high in the sky, beating down on the scorched earth. In the baked fields, maize and cotton have been planted. But none of the crops look very healthy. Leaves are wilted and tinged brown. Nothing has been watered for months.
Radha, a tough, sinewy widow and the only female farmer here, says that the well, which draws from deep groundwater, used to adequately supply the village and surrounding farms.

‘We have plenty of water – but water is the problem,’ she says.
As the bucket returns to the top, we can make out a white, almost oily-looking film on the surface of the liquid, which has formed little snowflake shapes.
She scoops up some water and asks us to smell it. It has an odour so acrid it catches in the back of our throats, making us cough.

‘We can’t irrigate our crops with it,’ she says. ‘It’s the water of death. It kills most crops we put it on.’
‘Gone bad,’ says the man who brought up the pail.

Radha makes a derisive gesture across the fields. Her calloused, cracked fingers bear testimony to a lifetime of weeding, planting and hoeing. She is 40 but looks closer to 60. Since her husband died eight years ago, she’s had to feed herself and her six children. Perhaps it’s necessity that’s made her more outspoken than her male counterparts.

‘A few years ago, I grew spinach, potatoes, lots of different crops. Now… look at my plants. Weak, useless.’
We’re in a field of cotton that should be ready to harvest. But there’s nothing to reap – just a few little tufts that blow mockingly in the breeze. Radha picks up a handful of soil. The surface has a faintly visible white crust, as if talcum powder has been sprinkled over it. Hold it close and it has the same caustic smell as the water, a bit like paint stripper.
Overlooking the fields like a hulking metal skeleton is the factory the villagers claim has polluted their water and land. The plant, owned by Gujarat Fluorochemicals (GFL), produces refrigerant gases for air-conditioning units and fridges.

rest of article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1188937/The-great-carbon-credit-eco-companies-causing-pollution.html

Climate Change: Science Manipulated
Natural causes of global warming are much more significant than manmade changes
By Syun Akasofu, 6/3/2009 2:07:30 PM

* 1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wants to claim that the global average temperature has unexpectedly and abruptly increased during the 20th century after a gradual cooling from the year 1000, and that this unexpected increase of the temperature is mostly man-made-the greenhouse effect of CO2.

* 2. For their purpose, the IPCC ignored the fact that the Earth went through a cold period called “the Little Ice Age” from 1400 to 1800.

* 3. The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 to the present. A recovery from a cold period is warming. It is mostly this warming that is causing the present climate change and it is not man-made. If they admit the existence of the Little Ice Age, they cannot claim that the global average temperature unexpectedly increased from 1900.

* 3a. In addition to the steady recovery from the Little Ice Age, there are superposed oscillatory changes. The prominent one is called the multi-decadal oscillation.

* 3b. In fact, most of the temperature change from 1800 to 2008 can be explained by the combination of the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation. If the recovery from the Little Ice Age continues, the predicted temperature rise will be less than 1°C (2°F) by 2100, not 3~6°C.

* 4. Because the warming began as early as 1800, not after 1946 (when CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly), the Little Ice Age was a sort of unwanted and inconvenient fact for the IPCC. (In their voluminous IPCC report, the Little Ice Age was mentioned casually only once, referring to it as “the so-called Little Ice Age.”)

* 5. There are a large number of observations that the Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 on, not from 1946 when CO2 is the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. For example:
* Receding of glaciers in many part of the world
* Receding of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean
* Change in freezing/melting dates of northern rivers and lakes

* 6. There is no firm observational confirmation that CO2 is really responsible for the warming during the last century. It is simply and assumption or hypothesis that the IPCC has presented as a fact.

* 7. The IPCC claims that supercomputer studies confirm the hypothesis.

* 8. Supercomputers cannot confirm their hypothesis, since they can simply “tune” their computer programs so as to fit the observations.

* 9. Although the IPCC predicted that by the year 2100 the temperature will increase 3~6°C, the temperature has stopped increasing after 2000 and shows even a decreasing sign.

* 10. Thus, their prediction failed even during the first decade of the present century, in spite of the fact that CO2 is still increasing.

* 11. This means that their CO2 hypothesis and computer programs are shown to be incorrect, proving that the program was tuned.

* 12. Why? Because they ignored natural causes of climate change, such as the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation.

* 13. The stopping of the warming is caused by the fact that the multi-decadal oscillation, another natural cause, has overtaken the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

* 14. In fact, the same thing happened in 1940, and the temperature actually decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact that CO2 began to increase rapidly in 1946.

* 15. It was said at that time that a new ice age was coming even by some of those who now advocate the CO2 hypothesis.

* 16. If the IPCC could include the physical processes involved in the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, they could have predicted the stopping of the temperature increase.

* 17. However, they could not program processes for the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, because the causes of the Little Ice Age, or the recovery from it, or the multi-decadal oscillation are not known yet. There are many unknown natural changes, including the Big Ice Ages.

* 18. Thus, the present state of climate change study is still insufficient to make accurate predictions of future temperature changes. Climate change studies should go back to basic science, avoiding interference from special interest groups, including the mass media.

* 19. Unfortunately, I must conclude that the IPCC manipulated science for its own purpose and brought the premature science of climate change to the international political stage, causing considerable confusion and advancing the completely unnecessary “cap and trade” argument.

* 20. What is happening now at many climate change conferences is simply an airing of the struggle between the poor countries trying to seize money from the rich countries, using the term “climate change” as an excuse.

* 21. We should stop convening useless international conferences by bureaucrats and pay much more attention to environmental destructions under global capitalism. There is no reason to alarm the general public with predictions of catastrophic disasters caused by the CO2 effect; and the mass media should stop reporting premature science results.

* 22. Basically, what is really needed are effective energy saving efforts by all countries.

Footnote: The hockey stick figure, which played the important role in the IPCC report of 2001, has not officially been withdrawn yet, although it has since been found to be erroneous.

Syun Akasofu is with the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Fairbanks, AK

An interesting article that outlines the so-called “flaws” in the carbon credit/debit system.

In order to comment properly about the conduct of the company concerned, one would have to see/read the ‘job description’ that facilitates auditing requirements of the industrial auditors.

Irrespective of these auditing requirements, I firmly believe that the entire carbon trading scenario is purely a scam designed to create further debt for every country in the world – the UN and its various pundits facilitating the entire scheme. What interests me is ‘where’ the ‘money’ aspect of the scheme comes in. How can traders trade something that has no monetary value per se? To me, this is equivalent to a bank printing its own money to lend to borrowers at exorbitant interest rates (oops! That’s right, I forgot they already do this…) and making money on something of no value.

I wonder if any of the City of London Corporation’s businesses would react as they are doing now if the problem were directly affecting them and/or their families? I could almost guarantee the outcome would be completely different to what it is now.

I could be wrong, but isn’t part of Agenda 21 a reduction in global population?

Australia calls for aviation to be part of climate change treaty

Proposal brings worldwide carbon tax for airline passengers closer

The prospect of a worldwide carbon tax for airline passengers is gathering pace after the Australian government demanded the inclusion of the aviation industry in the global climate change treaty.

The Australian administration has proposed that airlines are set a carbon dioxide reduction target as part of the treaty that will emerge from the Copenhagen summit this year. The latest plan would see responsibility for any aviation deal handed over to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is overseeing the treaty talks.

The proposal is one of four suggestions for dealing with aviation emissions that will be discussed in Copenhagen. If the Australian plan is accepted, it is likely that airlines will join a global emissions trading scheme. British Airways backed a global scheme last week and its chief executive, Willie Walsh, said it would force up fares as airlines pass on the multibillion-dollar cost of acquiring carbon credits.

Under a carbon trading scheme, airlines would be set an emissions limit – for instance, no more than 97% of the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by carriers in 2005 – and would be given free carbon credits equivalent to 85% of that total. The rest would be acquired in an open auction, with the proceeds being handed to developing countries.

The Australian proposal is gathering momentum because the body representing airlines at the talks is struggling to form its plan due to internal wrangling.

Environmental campaigners welcomed the Australian proposal. Joss Garman, of Greenpeace, said: “Scientists project that unless world leaders take action, ships and planes would eat up 50% to 80% of the world’s carbon budget by 2050, making it essential that governments end these industries’ special treatment and include them in a strong Copenhagen treaty.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/14/airlines-emissions-trading-australia

This just the start of the wealth transfer that will take place from the developed to the developing nations under the guise of saving the planet. As with the airlines all taxes inposed on industries will be passed onto us.

Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming is a hoax. Get informed by reading Air Con – Ian Wisharts excellent book and spread the word.

‘Air con’ is more of Mr Wishart’s fundamentalist Christian drivel. What’s more correct – the research of international scientific communities over many years that confirm environmental concerns that human overuse of natural resources is destabilising the intricacies of global ecology – or Biblical scripture that says that God created the earth for the sole purpose of humans to do whatever they want with? et’s go with Mr wishart, who believes that global warming must be a conspiracy by those scientists who in cahoots with all those liberal anti-Christ folks like socialists, environmentalists, feminists, academics who have helped construct a society based on principles apart from those outlined in the Old Testament. Interesting how the ‘global warming hoax’ crowd consists almost purely of hardcore right-wingers – corporate proselytisers, ACT party nerks, fundies like Wishart, and conspiracy theorists (sorry, fighters for truth and freedom)…

Once again “alex search” is “a day late and a dollar short”!

The skies are being sprayed Alex http://rense.com/general32/ovsc.htm and the aerosol cocktail [aluminum, barium, titanium, etc.] is causing an increase in temperature, where the spraying occurs, depending upon the chemical makeup of the spray used on any given day. [Look at the photo in the link and tell me that those are "normal contrails".]

You enjoy being ignorant, so you can continue what you’re doing.

If you were not so bent on attempting to discredit others, like your side-kick the troll, you would have researched and understood (by now) what’s going on.

Your hatred of those in the “patriot movement” and Christians has blinded you [and the troll as well].

Why do you get so touchy when Zionists or Israelis are mentioned? But, then, it is ok for you to be scornful towards Christians [whom you often refer to as loons] and patriots [a group you also despise]? Talmudic “Jews” often behave the exact same way. Such contempt for Christians. Just as you have, Alex.

http://www.rense.com/general53/brith.htm

Words fail me after that revolting rant from troll 2. The mountain of evidence out there which completely discredits the high priest of “global warming” and his bought and paid for IPCC is daming. Far was being a christian rant it is one of the most concise and well researched books on the subject I have read.

For the record the biggest lie people like Al Gore use to close down arguments is that the science is settled. This couldn’t be further from the truth. To quote from Ian’s book – “More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming”, reported Britain’s Daily Telegraph in mid 2008. “The acedemics, including 9000 with PhDs claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.”

There is no smiliar list of even 500 scientists who’ve put their names to a document supporting, like McKibben, or Al Gore or Penny Wong, claims that humans are definetly causing global warming. In other words far from a “consensu” or “settled”, the number of scientists prepared to publicly and visibly speak out against global warming hysteria outnumber those who publicly list themselves as believers.

Keep repeating the lie often enough through the establishment mouthpiece and eventually people will believe it.

I suggest you read Ian’s book and get educated “alex search” you really are showing your ignorance.

It’s good to know that I can solicit such a vitriolic response from you -it shows that I am drawing attention to the right things.

Journalist calls for rounding up ‘hate promoters’

Bonnie Erbe who is a contributing editor for US News & World Report and hosts PBS’s weekly news analysis program wrote a recent article titled “Round Up Hate Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks.” In regards to the recent shooting at the Holocaust Museum, Erbe has a suggestion, “isn’t it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?” She also ties in the shooter in the museum incident with Reverend Wright.

Recently the Plains State ADL Director denounced the 1st Amendment by saying that “freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups, nor give their supporters the right to threaten and intimidate others or commit acts of violence.”

It is a very dangerous sign when members of the media start calling for rounding up those whose views they find offensive and use a tragedy to support violating the 1st Amendment. Erbe seems to believe in selectively punishing anti-Jewish biogtry while ignoring anti-White, anti-Christian, and anti-Arab bigotry. To her rounding up people to prevent another holocaust makes a lot sense.

She sounds exactly like the Nazi’s she claims to oppose who also used events to call for rounding up those they deemed undesirable or a threat to their political agenda. Many individuals such as Ms. Erbe are using the crimes of the Nazi’s to promote their own version of fascism where one can be arrested for their political views. Who gets the power to determine what is hate speech? If you have the truth on your side, which Ms. Erbe clearly does not, you don’t need to round people up you disagree with.

In the 1930’s Louisiana Governor Huey Long was asked if fascism could ever come to America. His response was, “Sure, only here they’ll call it anti-fascism.” Fascism is here in America and it is under the banner of anti-fascism.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9462-LA-Ron-Paul-Examiner~y2009m6d15-Journalist-calls-for-rounding-up-hate-promoters

I thought this article perfectly shows the point that Philip made in his last post. It’s not hate speech if it’s directed at anyone other than Zionist Jews.

Good on u phillip or joe ascroft as u r normally called